User talk:sgeureka/Archive02

Big thanks

For the barnstar :) It is really a very nice surprise! Lord Opeth (talk) 18:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Sodan

Thanks for the info. However, if the article can't stay on it's own, I want you to do what would be best. However, I want to know why these "new" guidelines came into effect as there used to be many articles on their own that are now merged into a main page, character pages, technologies, planets and such. I thought that Wiki was celebrating having over 2 million articles, at this rate, they will probably regress below 2 million.

Vala M (talk) 21:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much again, I can see you're a person who really knows what they're doing. I hate all these merges these days as it makes content somewhat harder to find, would you happen to know why the notability of fiction was re-written? I have never heard anyone say why. As I said above, do whatever is necessary to preserve the content in it's entirety, I didn't realize what exactly was going on.

Vala M (talk) 05:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Merges

Sgeureka, will you stop for a minute? This isn't how one merges articles. You need to discuss things. This may be an encyclopedia, but it is a community. Throw a {{Merge}} template on and see how other users feel about it. Initiative is good, too much initiate can leave some bruises. -- SFH (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I have been doing about 10 merges today (a speed that is is actionable if opposition occurs), all for non-main characters whose articles widely fail WP:FICT (i.e. WP:BOLD applies). Merges can be undone easily, and I have always followed the bold-revert-discuss cycle (I know and accept that I can't always be right). There are only two (I think) out of the former 40(?) SG-1 articles left where I believe a bold merge would be non-controversial, so I am about to stop anyway. I have been extremely careful to not lose any content in the merge. I am already going the {{merge}} route for SG articles, but there are no replies so far. An even bolder move would be going to AfD, and all(!) of my boldly merged articles would be merged (which is what I want) or deleted (which is not what I want), so there is little point in discussing what ends with the same result anyway. I know how many trigger-happy wikipedians are out there, and seeing that a couple of SG articles have been orange-tagged for many months, bold is exactly what's needed to prevent recovering fiction articles from deletion review. I have already shown my dedication to improving SG articles, and I am not becoming the next TTN if that's what you fear. Thanks for your concern. :-) – sgeureka ^t•c 01:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid i have to voice my concern as well. You are merging the character articles in the miscellaneous article which is not meant for all the characters but rather only those that do not fit under other categories. My primary objection is the loss of organization because now all these characters are either scattered or lumped together.

However I do understand your motivation for doing this (WP:FICT). Considering that policy, it really does leave us in a bind. I wonder if we are really just delaying the deletion of these articles by merging them. Transcendence (talk) 00:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, in the template for Alien races in Stargate, Ori characters leads to Priors instead of Ori Society. I'd change it myself but I don't have enough experience with templates.Transcendence (talk) 00:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for voicing your concern, as I take concern serious when it is due. I am also not too happy about the miscellaneous characters, which I initially started for Harlan, Linea and and a few others who deserve a mention but really don't (IMO) deserve their own articles. The other option is to merge the characters to the race/group they belong, as I've done for the Priors for example. That would help to organize the characters by in-universe topic (Ancients, Tauri, Replicators), but would scatter the real-world organization (episodes, characters, races, technology etc.). The organization we formerly had may have addressed concerns from both sides, but made following WP:FICT really hard. I will start a thread at WT:STARGATE to get more input, but as I left the merged character sections mostly untouched, moving them somewhere else loses practically nothing.

Redirecting the Ori characters article comes from it formerly listing one-time characters like Denya, Seevis and Harrid and Salis (who really should not be covered in such detail, IMO), all the Priors (merged to the Priors article), and Tomin, who unfortunately ended up in the misc char list as well although he is one of my favorites. I redirected the Ori char article from the Prior article to Ori (Stargate)#Society a couple of days ago because that section gives a very nice overview over all the characters. Adria/the Orici still has her own article because I really don't know what to do with her; it's either the misc char article that would do a great disservice to her in-universe notability, or merging her into Ori (Stargate), which would be awkward and would potentially require too much trimming.

I have (also) come to the conclusion that merging cannot save every article from deletion, especially for technology (e.g. Asgard starships in Stargate), planets and locations, and some races (Nox (Stargate) and Furling (Stargate) despite their in-universe significance). But we're getting work done, and fiction deletionists (I am a convinced mergist) usually leave those topics alone where progress is visible. When the merging has reached a point where no more merging is possible (and I think we are very close to this point), I can and will start to establish notability for each article (others are of course invited to do so as well). I have an approximate idea what gateworld interviews exist, and own all SG-1 DVDs and own quite a few TV Zone magazines, which are not only great sources for real-world information but are also third-party. If the progress on Vala Mal Doran article is any indication (and I only used 50% of my available text sources and haven't added anything from the audio commentaries and DVD features yet), notability for the remaining list articles can be established quite easily, potentially allowing them to be broken out again. (I'll fix the template in a minute.) – sgeureka ^t•c 01:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Your badgering

While I realize this is going to be the equivalent of talking to a wall since you keep throwing the wrong argument at me in the AfD, I'll say it here AGAIN. Read what was written ABOUT THE ARTICLE IN QUESTION before creating arguments for arguments sake. I comment vaguely on the repeative nomination of fictional characters but I detailed the reasons why the Danny Tanner article should remain. Before tossing links and causing problems, read what is written. It's helpful in avoiding issues. KellyAna (talk) 19:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith, then read the nom's deletion rationale and the relevant policies and guidelines. The article has not a single reliable secondary source, therefore fails Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), therefore should be merged or deleted. I read your rationale but there was nothing that made the nom's rationale invalid. If you want the article to stay, please improve it (Boone Carlyle is a good example for what aspired). If you can't or won't, nom's right, and the article shouldn't stay in its current form. What other articles do or how popular TV is, is completely immaterial to the deletion discussion. You didn't source your other claims, so they don't hold much water (unfortunately). – sgeureka ^t•c 19:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I have never heard that I must defend the nominators rationale, just the article's reason for being. I DID THAT with MY OPINION which is what AfD is about, offering an opinion as to why the article exists. As for AGF, hate that, refuse to do it. I don't assume the sun will come up tomorrow, I'm not assuming I know what other people think or why they do what they do. I commented on the article's existence, your throwing links at me, as I stated in my KEEP vote, was unnecessary and ignored because you ignored what I had said. AfD is about keeping an article, not telling someone why they are wrong. KellyAna (talk) 19:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop shouting in CAPS and keep cool. Nothing of this is personal. I was suggesting that the way you phrased your opinion is often disregarded because it should generally be avoided, so that you can make your point clearer according to guidelines. If this is not what you want, fine, no problem. I was just trying to help. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Shouting would be putting everything in caps, random words is emphasis. I submit that if you were trying to help, the way you did it was not helpful. Throwing links generally makes the "I'm right, you're wrong" statement, not "hey, try it this way." KellyAna (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The intention of "throwing links" is to be efficient in the 100+ AfDs and thousands of replies each day, not to give cold elitist insiders-only impressions (WP:SHORT#Readability ;-)). You're bluelinked, you didn't seem like a newbie to me at the time and I expected you to know that. I apologize if that was not the case. AfD can be daunting when you have little knowledge of and little experience with AfD procedure. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, at least I see where you are coming from. I, 99.99% of the time, avoid AfD discussions generally because they tend to piss me off. I can edit articles, remove unsourced information, but I tend to not "fight" for articles well. I too often "speak from the heart" verses pulling link after link to back my reasoning. I further get frustrated that the television and soap articles tend to be #1 targets by what I like to call the "scholars" who have degrees I could never imagine obtaining. I majored in English and business, not quantum physics and it always seems AfD is intellectuals with PhD's verses those of us that just like television and want the articles to stay and given a chance to improve them. Hence why I avoid AfD and the arguments that go with them. I chose to offer an opinion and this is what happened. This is among the reasons why I avoid AfD. That's my other "issue" with AfD, it does seem "run by insiders." And then when someone like me comes along, we get berated; and without intending to, that's what it seemed you did. I get, now, that you didn't so please understand, it's how far too many others come off at AfD that caused my reaction. I guess I did assume. I assumed you were like all the others when it is obvious you are not. I apologize for any and all misunderstandings. KellyAna (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Jonathan Weed

Where is the AFD for him, I can't find it Ctjf83 ^talk 00:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bonnie Swanson. The AfD closer should have left a note on the talk page but didn't. – sgeureka ^t•c 00:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright, got it! Ctjf83 ^talk 01:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Vala

Can I just ask why you got rid of the image of Vala pregnant in the article? I added it cause I thought it was a jkey storyline to illustrate and wondered if I'd done something wrong. Million_Moments (talk) 14:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Because pregnant Vala looks no different than what you imagine Vala would look pregnant. There already is an image of Vala in the info box, so we don't need to have a second non-free image. It's all about keeping the number of non-free media down, because wikipedia strives to be a free encyclopedia. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Support

Well put. Let me know if you need any help. Eusebeus (talk) 18:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

cool

Were you really? That's fascinating, Jim. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 04:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I was, really. :-) And then wikipedia started to eat my time, so I had a new hobby. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Beliskner class cruiser

 Done. Have a nice day! east.718 at 10:51, January 8, 2008

Scrubs

Sort of. I created the major character list article @ List of major characters of Scrubs, and I transwiki'd the article on JD to the Scrubs wikia. However, until all the character information has been tw'd and the merge is completed, I have not redirected the article. Help would be appreciated, certainly as we slowly clean up the Scrubs pages. I like the show as well. Often quite funny. Eusebeus (talk) 15:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Charmed episodes

User:Catchpole is resurrecting stuff with only trivial sources added; see:

• Hell Hath No Fury (Charmed episode)
• Gone with the Witches

--Jack Merridew 14:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Another TV show where discussions on the talkpage are ignored. :-( – sgeureka ^t•c 15:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Your signature

Do you know that the "c" does not link to anything? –thedemonhog talk • edits 23:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC) P.S. See Talk:List of Lost episodes#Page transclusion for more information on what you asked about earlier.

I know about the non-linking c. It's a remnant from my newbie time when I was deadly afraid that people would ignore me if they couldn't check my good-faith contributions easily. When that was no longer necessary, I dropped the c for a short while, but my signature looked so stupid that I decided to re-add the c without the link (which I think just spams and would be mostly unused anyway). Thank you for the link. It all makes sense now. – sgeureka ^t•c 23:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I came here to say the same. It's confusing to people who try to catch a link on the small ^c. I suggest you redesign your signature without the c if you don't want a contributions link. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Acknowledged and changed. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [1]. --Maniwar (talk) 19:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Barnstars

I am wondering, what do you have to do to get a barnstar? I've made thousands of edits and never gotten one for anything. Or is it for dedicated work on a single project? Because I edit all kinds of articles.

Vala M (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Honestly: I don't know. Somehow, I got barnstars for work that I didn't realize anyone would notice, or for edits that I initially hoped no-one would finger me to AN/I or something, so all of my barnstars were completely unexpected. The only kind of wiki-appreciation I ever wanted was for my work in the disambiguation/surname area, and I am waiting to this day. :-) But barnstars don't really matter anyway. Newbies still call you names despite your edits being inline with wiki policies and guidelines, and long-time wikipedians don't value your input if your wiki philosophy is not the same as theirs. *shrugs* – sgeureka ^t•c 21:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Objective criteria for episode notability

I've attempted to synthesize the discussion. Again, feedback welcome.Kww (talk) 18:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Whatever it is

Whatever it is, it is not copyright infringement. It's copyright infringement for me to download and view it, not for me to write about it on Wikipedia. Yuna-chan (talk) 16:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thankyou for my barnstar, sometimes I feel I spend all day adding fair use rationales to those images. I just wish people would only use the images when they are needed, they add them to other articles and then they get deleted because you need a separate fair use for each article! Million_Moments (talk) 10:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Germany Invitation

Hello, Sgeureka! I'd like to call your attention to the WikiProject Germany and the German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board. I hope their links, sub-projects and discussions are interesting and even helpful to you. If not, I hope that new ones will be. Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany | finger on pulse Wikipedia:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board | finger on pulse

--Zeitgespenst (talk) 01:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review Request

I was wondering if you could take some time out of your schedule to head over to the Heroes (TV series) talkpage and give us an honest peer review. I noticed your fantastic detailed review of the List of Meerkat Manor meerkats and would love if you could do the same for the Heroes Wikiproject, who is also a member of the Television Wikiproject. The page has gone through some major changes in the last few months, and it would be fantastic if a prominent editor/contributor like yourself, could head over and give us at the Heroes Wikiproject some sound opinion and ideas on improvements for the page. We have all worked very hard at improving the page, and we need great outside, reliable and trustworthy users to come over and help us improve. If you are interested in joining the peer review discussion with other prominent users/contributors, much like yourself, please follow the link. Thank you very much for your help and your continued effort to improve Wikipedia and its quality! Wikipedia:Peer review/Heroes (TV series)/archive2--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 19:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation, I like Heroes and am currently watching it (like, right this minute), but as my country is only airing the backhalf of Season 1 and don't want to spoil myself (and I don't download), I can't help out out. Sorry. :-) – sgeureka ^t•c 19:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Perhaps when you are caught up with the american airings, which may not be until the series is complete, since american shows run ahead of international, but when you are all caught up, the heroes wikiproject could really use your review. hope you joins us then, even if it is a few years down the line...lol...thanks for replying.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 04:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You might find this marginally useful

Hi, your work on Window of Opportunity happened to pop up on my watchlist. While I disagree with removing in-universe content on such subjective and insufficiently examined basises (basii?) as "unencyclopedic" or "fancruft", I definitely like the addition of development and background information because it improves articles, and shortening rambling plot summaries because it makes them better to read and more effective. So, thanks.

In your work on the article, you might find it helpful to know that the plot section was significantly shorter at one time before deteriorating, and that period may contain still helpful elements.

Hey, that probably means that I value quality like you, but do not think that it's mutually exclusive with quantity in this environment. A pity that I lack the resources to discuss the matter in depth - the current brou-ha-ha over fiction is ultimately a failure of communication. --Kizor 18:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Arrrg, I just finished my "final" trim of the plot section, and it's still over 150 words longer than what WP:WAF recommends. :-) I want to take the article to GA some time in the near future, so there is not much room for guideline violation (especially concerning in-universe information). But your diff does look much better than what I tried to clean up, and I wonder how the plot section could deteriorate so much in 1.5 years. Thank you for your input, I'll give it a closer look. I still have a lot of copyediting ahead of me. :-) – sgeureka ^t•c 18:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The WAF length statements aren't worth losing sleep over. There was a trouble over those over at Bender's Big Score when the movie came out - never mind that the movie has multiple plotlines, a near-constant march of characters and extensive use of time travel, so it genuinely needs an according amount of plot description, and since it was new most of that out-of-universe stuff that's supposed to be proportionate didn't exist yet. Outcome: guidelines obeyed by harming the article. Be pragmatic, is what I'm trying to say. (This could still be wrong, I suppose. I'm not familiar with GA practices.)

A year and a half is a lot of time for stuff to happen. This article had bad luck in that a primary maintainer was remarkably bad at keeping his stuff together and then, due to involuntary factors, spent a couple months without the planning capacity it takes to do laundry. In ordinary circumstances the effects would've been well within the realm of maintainability. --Kizor 19:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Ben and Sofie's future

Hey there again! Was just reading Carnivale: Season_2_finale_and_character_fates[2], and noticed this final sentence:

but [Ben's] and Sofie's love and eventual future as a couple would not be in question.

I assume you wrote this? ... I've seen the chats were DK said they loved each other, but after reviewing the two citations, I'm under the impression that their future is very much in question. Thoughts? Cheers, Mdiamante (talk) 00:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I wrote that. The specific lines in the sources I used were

• ilovecarnivale: Was Sopie and Ben ever going to meet up with each other and be in the end?
• fboffo_DKnauf: love, yes. [3]

and

• Question: Do Ben and Sofie love each other?
• Answer: Yes, more than life itself.[4]

– sgeureka ^t•c 00:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Ha, that explains why I didn't see the bit when I searched for "Sophie", not "sopie". From a strictly semantic perspective, DK could be saying that they would meet at the apocalypse, not live happily together. It's a rather badly-written question... I would suggest, due to the numerous ambiguous references to the characters' future, saying that Sophie and Ben did still love each other and keep it at that, but if you feel strongly about I'll defer. Best, Mdiamante (talk) 00:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Please rewrite it if you want to / can. When I was writing that, I was mainly concerned to be all lovey-dooey POV/OR against GA rules. I checked what other sources I have available, and it's as cryptic as before.

• Q: Will you elaborate/clarify the "Ben and Sofie love each other more than life itself" comment?
• DK: Is that statement really open to interpretation? It means what it says. Period.[5]

and

• Q: In season 2, when Sofie read the tarot cards to Ben and they both saw the future with them together and the explosion occurred, did this mean they were not meant to be together and that it would be catastrophic?
• DK: The "nuclear kiss" only means what it will mean. It's a vision open to interpretation. By Ben. By Sofie. By you.[6]

I think that's all I ever found about that relationship, other than fan speculation that was at times really inspiring. :-) – sgeureka ^t•c 00:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment

You marked the dab page Bastard for cleanup a couple weeks back, and I just cleaned up in a big way. I removed a lot of entries. I thought you might want to take a look. If there's anything else that you think should be removed, or anything you'd like to add back, have at it! Cheers--ShelfSkewed Talk 05:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't even remember tagging that page. :-) It looks very clean now, and although I won't check every removed entry, it seems your judgment is quite good. Well done. It could be argued that some of the people (especially in "Arts and entertainment") would never be referred to as "Bastard" alone, but then again I have never heard of them, and there is a reasonable association with the dab word so they might as well be kept on the page. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree about the A&E entries, and I was on the fence about including them. But they are the kind of entries that, if you remove them, other editors will come along and put them right back. Maybe I'm a pushover, but I think it's easier to put them in--neatly, well written, and correctly linked--and be done with it. Anyway, thanks for taking a look. --ShelfSkewed Talk 12:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

deletion of stargate episode articles

I think what you allowed to happen is an insult to the hundreds of people who worked for thousands of hours to create these articles. I used wikipedia as a primary source for episode information. I don't give a damn about wikipedia guidelines, these regulations should be changed.--68.45.82.237 (talk) 04:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

If you had checked the discussion threads and the wikia link next to each episode, you would have realised that nothing got lost. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

List of jail and prison museums

Consolidation complete on the List of jail and prison museums & the situation is resolved. Thanks for adding to the discussion & your input on the Disamb piece was very helpful. FieldMarine (talk) 06:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Window of Oppertunity

Finished, not much added. Apparently I don't own the essential scripts book who'dve thought. I seem to remember on the commentaries they explained why the expisode was short, they said it was due to lack of foot time or something. The characters wern't having to explain as much stuff. I think it'd be a good idea to include this as an explanation of why the episode ran short I just can't remember the precise term! Million_Moments (talk) 10:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Gateworld has the syndacation ratings for this if you want to include them. WoO was also Sky One's greatest SG-1 episode but sadly I can find no reference for it. Million_Moments (talk) 11:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Window of Opportunity (Stargate SG-1)

Hey, I've just reviewed Window of Opportunity (Stargate SG-1) which you put up for GA nom. The article looks good, but I have left a few requests for it on the article's talk page. If you'll just send me a message when you're done, I'll review it again, and if it looks good, pass it. Have a good day. Mastrchf91 (^t/_c) 19:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks good, I've passed it. If you have any time, I'd appreciate if you'd GA-review my article Diversity Day. Have a good day. Mastrchf91 (^t/_c) 20:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I've gotten the stuff you requested finished, and left notes on them at the episode talk page. Mastrchf91 (^t/_c) 22:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Toni Graphia

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Toni Graphia, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Toni Graphia seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Toni Graphia, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 00:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Episodes of other series

But in about the episodes of other series, which has been created is time? answer me here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawless fan (talk • contribs) 00:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

NFC Images

This is tricky because there's no hard and fast rule on how many images are appropriate. Although policy (WP:NFCC#3a) says "minimal use at all times", I think the important guideline here is WP:NFC#Images, which basically says "are these images being used for critical commentary and to increase reader understanding, or are they just decorative"? For instance in these articles, a mugshot of a human character would probably not pass, but if the actual article was talking about the physiology of one of the alien races, a photo (and probably just one) to inform the reader what the aliens look like would not be exceptionable. Get back to me if you have any specific examples you'd like me to look at. Black Kite 09:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Toni Graphia

An editor has nominated Toni Graphia, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toni Graphia and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 23:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Stargate articles

I found the info on the Tau'ri technology page. Personally, I think that the Daedalus class battlecruiser article is notable and big enough to be it's own page. The problem with the merge is that 2 of the 3 articles in question are too small and would just make a large page larger. Better to keep them all separate.

Vala M (talk) 19:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Without reliable third-party sources, there is no demonstrated notability, and without it, nothing is save from deletion on wikipedia (I am not necessarily talking about now, but about the enforcement of notability guidelines in ~3 years when none of us may be around for longer to save the articles). Significant parts of the articles (not F-302) are just WP:NOT#PLOT and can be trimmed, the rest is originally researched statistics and can be trimmed as well (but doesn't have to), so I wouldn't necessarily worry about the current size of the articles. Since I have no way of knowing whether a merge is really the best solution, I'll probably test it in my sandbox first and will let the discussion run its course for a month or so. In the meantime, the current tags encourage the addition of non-trivial real-world information (WP:FICT/WP:WAF). If it turns out that my merge proposal was objectively a terrible idea, I will of course withdraw, but cleanup needs to start somewhere. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Spongebob

'll take you up on that at some point (i.e. the quest for indep sources). I reckon there'll be some out there, as there definitely was for things like Ren and Stimpy...just a bit hands-full at the moment. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• d'oh! I knew I should have checked again who wrote it....Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

One For the Money

It would also appear to be a stage play, a film, and a tv movie; Gene Kelly#Stage work, Maggi Parker, Lynn Collins. You may be interested in this, too. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Fixed and /or added to the dab page. The namespace issue is on my to-read list. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This is vaguely related, but I had started a thread at MOS:DAB in late November 2007, see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Get rid of non-notable entries when they have lost their popularity?. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I've replied to Masem on his talk page. Just read your thread from November and you're on just about the same path I am. It's not quite a popularity issue, it's a naming issue and a maintenance issue. Fans, for example, have no trouble viewing Kressler as primarily their Stargate character. Meanwhile, Craig Kressler remains a redlink. A lot of what's behind this is wikipedia's scale; there are hoards of lightweight editors and they're never read a policy or a guideline. There are now millions of pages and the only reasonable way to handle maintenance issues of this scale is with tools that transform the database. There must be developers of this site that know this and widespread understanding of it can not be too far down the road. The backlog, if anyone has tools to measure it, is huge and growing much faster than it is being attended to and if millions of articles is not enough to illustrate the issue, tens of millions will. FYI, One for the Money should probably be about the children's nursery rhyme and the disambiguation be at One for the Money (disambiguation); too bad there doesn't appear to be such an article. There are, however, just oodles of Dungeons & Dragons deities. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You are probably already ahead of me in the meta-level thinking. I am arguing more from the perspective of a "maintainer" complaining about the hard work caused by recentism with little encyclopedic value (I am, or used to be, a very regular dab and surname editor who also fixed the incoming-links problem from time to time). From an fiction-editorial standpoint, I am fairly sure that we're on the same page concerning the article basics. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I agree with you re a maintainers perspective. People interested in cleaning-up such problems are far outnumbered by people creating the maintenance issues. You can win select battles, but the war is lost absent a superior strategic approach. I believe the root of this is the interaction between anyone can edit and discussion is encourage. This allow anyone to create issues with impunity and hobble clean-up efforts with take it to talk.

Look at the absurd tv case; I said a while ago that the workshop page would reach a half a megabyte (it is way beyond that). And to what end? No one has read all of that discussion. The workshop page is merely a means to contain squabbles for a bit. They're going to swat TTN because a lot of people like their tv shows. This will do nothing to solve the core issues that underly the case. The wiki has serious problems of scale. See The Decline of Empire (and this, too). Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I am certain that the only way this problem can get fixed in the long run is what we're currently doing: Have a bold and may-I-say-hard-nosed editor like TTN make the large-scale problems obvious, then have a calm but cleanup-oriented editor like Masem keep cleanup discussions on topic, and finally tackle the remaining cruft strongholds through voluntary fan-editors or, if that doesn't work, authorative task forces. I'm still hoping that arbcom will not effectively ban TTN from fiction cleanup work, as that will just encourage more editors to insist on ILIKEIT wikilayering to prevent the application of policies and guidelines. But I am going off on a tangent. I'll read the links later. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I see a consensus to focus on TTN; see [7]. On the blog links, be sure to note who the authors are. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Meerkat Manor

Thanks again for your help with List of Meerkat Manor meerkats. I made some changes to address the hidden comments. I rewrote a couple of sentences, so I was wondering if you could take a quick look to let me know if I adequately addressed things? Collectonian (talk) 21:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

charmed reverting --> thnks so much!!

omggg i never got it...how did u do it so fast? cuz i visited and started freaking out when i saw everything was changed and then in 10 minutes it was over...can u teach me how to do it just in case?? thnkss!! Lucia (talk) 22:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Reverting My Changes

Please don't do that. That took a lot of work. Since I am not on wikipedia much, could you represent me on the proper talk pages? And update me on your goings about? At the very least, I believe that you should copy and past my changes on to the talk pages. What you did was very very upsetting to me.Asrghasrhiojadrhr (talk) 06:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not a new editor. I usually edit anon and I have an account that I choose not to revive.Asrghasrhiojadrhr (talk) 07:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, I reverted back my edits in Search and Rescue (Stargate Atlantis) per arbitration:

Temporary injunction

1) For the duration of this case, no editor shall redirect or delete any currently existing article regarding a television series episode or character; nor un-redirect or un-delete any currently redirected or deleted article on such a topic, nor apply or remove a tag related to notability to such an article. Administrators are authorized to revert such changes on sight, and to block any editors that persist in making them after being warned of this injunction.

≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 12:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that pitty to destroy an article even stub ? I will self-revert if we will get to this by this talk. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 14:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 15:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Disagreement without agreement generally doesn't mean you have a consensus. So you are saying that all articles about SGA episodes will be destroyed and redirected to the main article? Then I will definitely disagree. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 15:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I will join the discussion, I hope you don't take this personally. Off the site (don't take it as WP:ILIKEIT) I search for episodes content very often on Wikipedia. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 23:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

In regards to the merge of Stargate Tech and Races

Why? The section may redundant, and may contain OR, but all of that can be cleaned up. I'm going to undo this merge, as none of the information on Tech carried over into the other article, not only that, but this action was not discussed as far as I can see on the talk page of either of the articles. Daedalus (talk) 07:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I undid my undo. I mistaked that article for another, sorry. Daedalus (talk) 07:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikis

That's interesting, I didn't realize that was going on. I'm actually not that familiar with linking to Wikias, I've basically just been using what other people do. If we can't link to a specific page, that's going to suck for my new Characters of Smallville, since I have Wikia links all over the place. This might need to get brought up over at the discussion for notability, or the style page. Maybe someone knows what to do about it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Good to know. Thanks.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Elle Bishop GA Review

I have addressed the points you made on the article's talk page. Please get back to me if there are any other changes that need to be met before the review can be completed. Thanks. -Lindsey8417 (talk) 00:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Much thanks! -Lindsey8417 (talk) 03:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Stargate

You can't just go removing pages just because you don't like stargate. --[[123Pie|Talk]] 16:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I love Stargate. Can you point me to Stargate articles that I removed inappropriately? – sgeureka ^t•c 16:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

All the Season 5. --[[123Pie|Talk]] 16:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't done inappropriately. None of them passed WP:EPISODE and/or WP:FICT, and I mentioned my intention to transwiki and then redirect them weeks before I took action. You are free to revive the articles if you rewrite them to meet WP:EPISODE and/or WP:FICT. See "Window of Opportunity", "Zero Hour", "200" and "Unending" for how an episode article should look like (three of these episode articles were written by me, and I was a contributer to the fourth one). – sgeureka ^t•c 16:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh wait. If you're talking about Atlantis - these episodes cannot even be notable yet since they haven't even aired (or were produced, for that matter). – sgeureka ^t•c 16:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No, SG-1, couldn't you of made them good enough to pass? --[[123Pie|Talk]] 16:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It takes several weeks to write an acceptable article, and I am already busy with establishing the notability of many other Stargate-related articles that don't curently pass WP:FICT. If you want to help, great! If you don't, the redirects have to do for now. I am/was careful to transwiki the articles and leave links there, so all the (old) content is just as accessible as before, just at an off-wikipedia place. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

–

How can I quickly get – on my sigs instead of --? –[[123Pie|Talk]] 18:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Go to "my preferences" (at the very top, right), and type it into the field "signature". – sgeureka ^t•c 18:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. – [[123Pie|Talk]] 18:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:Medcab

No, I don't think it'd be disruptive to merge. Five extra weeks have been given, after all. Will ^(talk) 17:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk:The Other Woman (Lost)

Hey. –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I am baffled and sad that my edit to this episode was removed as "unnecessary". Why do you think the fact that Jack also encounters Harper along with Juliet is an "unnecessary detail"?-phamitus talk • edits 11.46, 18 March 2008 (IST)

Astrid Peth

Hi, thanks for reviewing the article. Another editor and I have worked through the points on your list on the talk page. Please could you review the changes and make your decision as to whether the article passes or fails Good Article criteria? Many thanks. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 14:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Karin and Karen

Could you glance at these quick and see if something more is needed? Please reply on your talk page. Thanks! Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks good except that the Special:Allpages links should go (they were once used for given names, but {{Infobox Given Name Revised}} on the name pages takes care of this now). – sgeureka ^t•c 06:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Been wanting to know, does MOS:DP#Introductory line apply to dabs like Sia and Crash, where an all caps writing is listed in the top line? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Short answer: yes, even though it looks funny. But there are ways to make it look less strange. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

What would you suggest I do? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You can

1. Leave it like it is
2. Get rid of the ==Section headers== and replace them with bolded intros, see Atlantic (disambiguation)
3. Start the dab page with an other section and leave the ==Section headers==, see Gamble (disambiguation)

Most of this is just cosmetics, so don't worry about being perfect. :-) – sgeureka ^t•c 20:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Abtract has removed one, should I just do the same to the other page? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it seems I misunderstood you the whole time. :-S When it comes to "Crash or CRASH may refer to" with only one short section afterwards, I generally (always?) use "Crash may refer to" per MOS:DP#Introductory line. Otherwise, I split the dab page into two sections and start one section with "Crash may refer to", and the other section with "CRASH is an acronym for", see e.g. Emu (disambiguation), INA or NET. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you perform these edits? I'd like to see how it would be done to small dabs like Sia and Crash. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I've done Sia (SIA Ltd could go in either section), and Crash seems fine to me in its current form. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1987 (number)

Wikipedia:Speedy keep#Applicability point 1 says: "No-one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted, and the nominator either withdraws the nomination, or ..." The AfD still had a delete. It was made before my expansion of the article but it still counts against speedy closure. There were also 3 "Move to 1000 (number)" which are really merges since the target already exists. Such a merge would presumably delete most of the current content in the article to fit the target format. Another thing, you removed the hatnote when removing [8] the AfD tag. Maybe it was an accident. If it was intentional, I don't think a close should make any other change to the article, especially if the edit summary sounds like a normal close. Other changes can be made in a new edit. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

1. I removed the hatnote per WP:HATNOTE#Disambiguating article names that are not ambiguous, i.e. this was not by accident.
2. I interpreted Colonel Warden's Delete !vote as obsolete after the "significant improvement".
3. Moves (or mergers) can be done through the editorial process.
4. Per my interpretation of the "article" and WP:IAR, the article is already closer to a disambiguation page than anything else, and deletion would do more harm than good. In fact, I put this "article" on my todo list when I closed the AfD, with the intention to turn it into a dab page.
5. The aftereffects of yesterday's April Fool's were still messing with my head.
6. I usually add "non-admin closure" in my edit summaries, but I simply forgot them in this case.

My actions were all in good faith, and I'd act the same in a similar situation. If you feel the AfD should be reopened, simply revert me. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Years are also numbers. Year 1987 is so recent that many people will quickly associate 1987 with a year. Many other number articles have similar hatnotes, also when there is less risk of confusion because it's an older year, for example 1138 (number), 1458 (number), 1729 (number). Regarding the edit summary when you removed the AfD tag: I was referring to it not indicating other changes. Editors looking at the page history will not expect the close to make other changes, and I don't think it should. I made the expansion and said keep so me reopening the AfD could look like process wankery and I'm not doing it, but I think speedy non-admin closes should be restricted to clearer cases. Check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers and other number articles if you want to change it to a dab page. Many number pages have lots of entries which could also be on dab pages, and some of the 1987 content cannot be moved to a dab page where it would be irrelevant. Deleting that content while moving could be seen as ignoring the AfD close. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

My point about the hatnote was, if someone types in "1987 (numbers)" or visits the article from "1987", he clearly wants to read the numbers article, not the years article, so why backlink to the years article? I don't understand what you mean with "not indicating other changes". (Other point) For me, the AfD was totally clearcut, and closing it as withdrawn seemed non-controversial and like normal housekeeping to me. I haven't visited the Numbers WikiProject yet, but I have dealt with a handful of dab-number pages before and no-one has contacted me so far that I was doing something wrong. If you'd like to see the AfD reopened (and closed by an admin after sufficient time), just leave a note here, and I will promptly reopen it. No problem whatsoever. :-) – sgeureka ^t•c 14:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

People can arrive at an article in many ways - at least when it gets incoming links which the new 1987 (number) still lacks. If they follow a piped link like 1987 then they may expect year information.

The edit summary in [9] was "rm afd notice - closed as withdrawn by nom". But the edit did two things: Remove the afd notice and remove the hatnote. I know it's frequent that an edit summary is incomplete but closing an afd is such a special operation performed by experienced users (usually admins) that other users following the article history will not expect other changes, so they may overlook that something else was changed. It's just a detail and it's unrelated to the AfD being withdrawn and non-admin speedy closed.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to discuss an AfD says: "If the reasons given in the deletion nomination are later addressed by editing, the nomination should be withdrawn by the nominator, and the deletion discussion will be closed by an admin. If the nominator fails to do it when you think it should have been done (people can be busy, so WP:AGF on this point), leave a note on the nominator's talk page to draw their attention."

Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions says: "Closing discussions in which you have offered an opinion or for a page that you have edited heavily presents a conflict of interest and should be avoided. The sole exception is if you are closing your own withdrawn nomination as a speedy keep and all other viewpoints expressed were for keep as well."

I expect the afd would have ended as keep and if the delete and move !voters don't object then I don't request reopening. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I (probably) thought mentioning the removal of the hatnote in the edit summary would be more confusing than transparant for those checking the AfD results, but I was wrong. I'll keep the/your AfD notes in mind and will be more careful in the future. Have a nice evening. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Sniper (disambiguation)

Could you take a look at this drastic change? Some of these edits go against the guidelines, and the user added an "All Pages", which I thought the manual of style preferred only for name lists, not dabs, like you told me. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll get back to you later when I have waded through the changes. Yes, it looks drastic, but sometimes this is necessary in a cleanup. In such cases, however, I tend to provide a list of the removed entries on the dab talk page for transparancy, e.g. see Talk:Tiger (disambiguation), so that others can undo where I was a little bit too bold. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought the "All Pages" link should go, as in "be taken off", as you implied here. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) See Talk:Sniper_(disambiguation)#Cleanup, and I come to the following conclusion (other dabbers may disagree): The cleanup attempt was mostly in line with MOS:DAB, but may have been a little over-eager in a few cases (Sniper (computer game), Sniper (TV series), Sniper Studios, Sniper Records and maybe Mission Snipers). I also found (just my personal opinion) that the former layout made it easier for the reader to find what he wanted, even when it included a few entries that shouldn't have been there (e.g. Sniper Elite and AmericanSnipers.org). I suggest to re-add the entries you'd like to see back and reorganize, or ask for a third opinion at WT:MOSDAB.

As for your second point that you just added, I think the AllPages link doesn't add very much if the other pages mentioned above are re-added. Also remember there is no "perfect" dab page and that each dabber has his own "style" inline with MOS:DAB; a link too few or too many doesn't usually harm anyone. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather just revert everything. That too harsh? It'll save me the time, and I can refer to this discussion as my reason for doing so. Thought? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

If you think reverting (and maybe working from there) improves the page, do it. I don't feel strong about either version, but have said everything I'd like to say, above. :-) – sgeureka ^t•c 05:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted the user's edits, with explanations in my edit summary. Something came to mind though afterward; would merging The Sniper into the current dab be appropiate? I remember seeing an area in the MoS that said this was encouraged. Or so I read. Any new ideas? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

If you'd do a poll among dabbers, you'd get 50:50. I'm slightly leaning towards merging, but that's more of a gut decision that I can't explain well. – sgeureka ^t•c 05:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Guess I'll be bold and do the merge. Anything you want to say beforehand? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

“ Even if you think you've made a perfect dab page, someone else will come along and disagree. – sgeureka ^t•c 05:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC) ”

So bad move huh? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

No, that was just a poor attempt of an injoke about that I still find my thought-to-be-perfect dab pages immediately Disambig page style repaired by other experienced dab editors... I mean, just be bold and do what you think is best. – sgeureka ^t•c 06:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That made me laugh. OK, I'll get the merge completed. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I redirected the page. There wasn't anything to merge because the stuff was already there, hence, there should be no reason for someone to revert. Regards, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Given that the purpose of a dab is to direct people quickly and efficiently when an ambiguous term is entered, and not function as an index or means of exploration, I made the edits that I did, including removal of such clearly non-ambiguous entries as D.C. Sniper: 23 Days of Fear and AmericanSnipers.org. These are not pages that one would credibly expect to find if entering only the disambiguated term, "sniper".

I made an effort to consider each entry removed, e.g. Sniper (computer game) and Sniper (TV series). These entries are not pages themselves but redirects, and even in the article the term "sniper" appears only once, as a working title, and not even as a subject synonym worth bolding.

I'm not concerned with minor variations, even regarding the given examples. I don't care if all "The Sniper" entries are included or referred to on a separate dab (although, if users trouble to type "The Sniper" in search of an article I think that they should be rewarded with a dab listing only other such terms). But the fundamental page bloat, and the further bloat it invites, needed to be addressed.

We're all trying to do our best. I encourage modification as seen fit. ENeville (talk) 17:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

ENeville, the "All Pages" link should be taken off per what sgeureka said. And can you place the links you removed with "The" to The Sniper? Think was probably the case all along, as I knew we were missing somethings. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I understand all of what you're saying. As I said, I encourage you to modify as you see fit. ENeville (talk) 17:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to make sure: Are you talking to me or to Sesshomaru? – sgeureka ^t•c 17:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thought he was referring to the conversation. I'd like to know myself. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

My first comment was a general statement, as directed by the 05:18, 4 April 2008, edit comment of sniper (disambiguation). My second comment was as response to the response to my initial comment, and additionally directed by the 17:40, 4 April 2008, comment on my talk page. And this comment is a response to the preceding two comments, and additionally directed by the 18:05, 4 April 2008, comment on my talk page.  :-P

To attempt to summarize and do so in a manner keeping with the venue—though at some risk of repetitiveness—I say again that we're all trying to do our best, and I encourage modification as seen fit. There will be some variation in editing, but I do stand by the principles I referred to for dabs, as they are indicated in MOS:DP. Perhaps further discussion specific to sniper (disambiguation) should be carried out at the talk page there, and general discussion of dabs be continued here, if more is required.  :-) ENeville (talk) 19:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Dirty Dancing Peer Review

Hi, we've done some work on Dirty Dancing, and I'd like to try again. You had some good comments in the last nom, so if you're available, I'd appreciate your comments at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Peer review/Dirty Dancing. Thanks, Elonka 13:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The TV Star

		The TV Star
		For the tedious work you do for Stargate Atlantis, and for doing some much-needed cleanup at List of Gilmore Girls characters! Jak 06:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. It seems I'm not the only one who likes Stargate and Gilmore Girls at the same time. :-) – sgeureka ^t•c 08:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The Truman Show

Don't be surprised if you see that I've crossed out some of your suggestions. Those are stuff that I have corrected since you reviewd it. As you go along and review the article, I will cross out stuff as I go along and correct. Thanks. Wildroot 16:16, 6 April 2008

Whatever helps you to get the article to GA... :-) – sgeureka ^t•c 22:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

See what else is needed to pass after my recent edits. igordebraga ≠ 04:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Replied at article talk page. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Me and an editor with more experience in the article have fixed what you asked, see if it's enough. igordebraga ≠ 19:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Alientraveller helped a lot on that article, but I'm mainly responsible as to why it achieved GA status. Asshole.-Wildroot (talk) 21:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

No personal attacks please. – sgeureka ^t•c 05:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

thanks!

Thanks for the Barnstar at Murder, Madness, and Mayhem!  :) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 09:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

About the "All Pages" discussion

You mentioned that the {{Lookfrom}} tag should be removed from any disambiguation pages, yet this editor doesn't think so. Where exactly is the link to that discussion? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't remember that I said that Lookfrom should always be removed, but I probably said/meant that Lookfrom should be used very very sparingly because anything that should appear on the dab page per se doesn't need a Lookfrom, and everything else (usually) doesn't belong on a dab page anyway and also doesn't need a Lookfrom. Having said that, Go would indeed be one of the few dab pages where a Lookfrom may enhance the usefulness of the dab page (look at all the "Go XXX Go" examples). The only other similar dab case I encountered first hand was Draw. Your mileage may vary. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

So, how do I decide when it goes and when it stays? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Get a lot of dab experience and let your gut decide. And that's really all I can say, unfortunately. Ask another dab editor, and he may have a completely different gut feeling, so don't take my gut feeling as the ultimately right decision. :-) – sgeureka ^t•c 00:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Template StargateNav

I have created a simpler version of this template and have posted it for discussion here. --88wolfmaster (talk) 03:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Fiction & Notability

In addition to your contribution at WT:FICT, please have a look at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)/RFC1 as your input would be most welcome and would encourage other editors to contribute to the debate, which will remain open until the end of the month.--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Some video game articles

If you get a chance, can you revert some of the following articles to redirects? All of them except Banjo underwent some sort of discussion and that one was only brought back by anon anyways. They are: Jigglypuff, Meowth, Banjo (Banjo-Kazooie), Toad (Nintendo), Meta Knight, Captain Olimar, and List of characters in Super Paper Mario. TTN (talk) 21:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll see how much I can do without a bad conscience or risking accusations that either you or I are violating the arbcom injunction. The Pokemon page won't be a problem because of the WikiProject backing, I guess. Meta Knight will be redirected next week anyway because Colonel Warden doesn't seem to be using his extra time for doing something about his burden of evidence. I'll read up on the merge discussions of the others. You may get better input and faster help at WP:FICT/N the next time (I am not much of a gamer). – sgeureka ^t•c 21:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The fiction noticeboard seems pretty dead. If it actually had people browsing it, I would be all over it. At this point, it seems like if I get anything, I'll get two people who agree with me, two annoying neutral people, and two people set against any sort of merging. That's certainly not going to help anything. Definitely don't do anything that you don't want to do, though. TTN (talk) 22:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I was just pointing out at WP:FICT one or two weeks ago that the idea of a noticeboard only works when someone actually helps out, and so they did. I am still holding out hope that everyone is just too busy with WP:FICT at the moment to give it any attention now.

As for the articles, I am uncomfortable doing anything about Jigglypuff because he got some real-world sources (I am trying to go just for the clear-cut cases), and Toad (Nintendo) because he may be kind of notable even though his article is terrible. Also, both of their edit histories show that the redirects were undone some time ago, so I can no longer claim consensus to keep the redirects. Should any of the renewed redirects of the other articles be reverted, I will neither start an edit war nor a merge discussion because I simply don't know enough about the characters or video game editing and because I got my own merge proposals to get through. :-) – sgeureka ^t•c 22:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If it does ever get to the point where it'll actually help articles become merged or improved, I'll definitely frequent it. I guess Jigglypuff can wait, but if you could at least do Toad, that would be appreciated. It was one of a number of articles merged into the character list after a discussion, and it was only brought back because the guy apparently didn't know that discussions take place on the target page. And then if it's reverted, oh well for now. TTN (talk) 22:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, found the merge discussion for Toad, so that's settled also. (I didn't go back far enough in the page history.) – sgeureka ^t•c 22:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Semi-public re-evaluation of Meowth: I made a good-faith misinterpretation of the situation, for which I apologize now. Since I am only familiar with the German names of the Red/Blue Pokémon, I assumed that the English Meowth (German: Mauzi) would be the same as the German Mew (English: Mew), and I wasn't more careful. I only notice my mistake now, and had I noticed it earlier, I would never have touched that Pokémon since I know of the character's relevance in the anime. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry that I got you dragged into this crap again. I never realized that the whole situation could become so inane again. TTN (talk) 16:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I hoped it wouldn't become a big deal, but I kind of expected it anyway. Don't worry. My conscience is clear unless it has become criminal overnight to edit according to policies and guidelines. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Some of these editors are back at it, gaming the system, wikilawyering and being generally churlish and are becoming very hot under the collar. The Arbcom really f*$&%d up here, because the fict-fanatics are now generally interpreting the arbcom case as a content decision and not an user-behaviour decision. I agree with SG here: it remains important that content-driven actions based in policy not be conceded. Btw, I note with interest ongoing efforts to eliminate WP:NOT#PLOT, change WP:CONSENSUS and simply ignore WP:N as lacking community sanction. Eusebeus (talk) 17:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Eusi, I pretty sure you have come across my wiki statements often enough to know how I feel about the whole situation, and I'll also say that my lurker qualities just make it seem like I don't know what is going on everywhere. May I give you a tip: Read Wikipedia:Don't-give-a-fuckism and Wikipedia:Ignore all dramas and think about whether little children screaming about how evil mommy is, is causing mommy to lose her ultimate say. Trying to shake the kids to their senses has so far only proven to alert the Jugendamt, so just let the kids scream while staying loyal to your principles. Similarly, "I like my articles to be crap" may currently seem to win, but the little buggers will run out of breath once they realize that their method doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell against "wikipedia strives for the best possible quality" in the long run. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Good advice. Thanks. Actually I'll go on wikibreak, since my actions are actually proving to be deleterious to the views I hold and are providing currency to those editors whose views, as you note, should eventually be discredited. Eusebeus (talk) 18:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hope to see you back when the blood pressure has gone back to normal levels for both camps. Maybe you'll also find some sufficiently improved articles then (always good, driven by your merge proposals) and not-all-all-improved articles (which can be merged/redirected/deleted more easily because no-one was willing or able to fulfill their WP:BURDEN the first time around). It just takes some time. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Olimar

Hi. I would like to remind you that I restored the Olimar page due to the fact that TTN redirected it maliciously in the first place. How about you actually make a discussion about this and see what others think instead of just doing his agenda and redircting without warning. Thank you for your time. ZeroGiga (Contact) 20:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Following policies and guidelines should not be labelled malicious, especially when no-one considered this action inappropriate for five months. And I actually did start a discussion, until I noticed that time had already established a consensus, so why bother? The article was resurrected without warning, so I figured per WP:BRD it can be reverted without warning. Anyway, no problem, how long do you think the discussion should run? – sgeureka ^t•c 00:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The article is in an even worse shape than I thought. I explained the merge/redirect rationale on the series talk page. If no one volunteers to fix the article any time soon, the article gets redirected again. Should be quick. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Episodes and Characters 2 restriction clarification request notification

FYI, there is a question about TTN's restrictions and acting as his proxy on [10] Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 10:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Tau'ri starships in Stargate

Hey Sgeureka, nice job on the merge of ship articles. I would like to toss some copyedit suggestions at you though...not criticisms, just things to watch out for in the future.

• I see several instances of overuse of parenthetical comments that really should be woven into regular prose...I've fixed at least one instance in the article. Avoid using parenthetical statements unless absolutely necessary (aka, they just won't fit properly in regular sentence form, though often times, this means there is little reason to keep the material anyway).
• Remember too that when writing about fiction, always use present tense, rather than the past tense used in the article. And when dealing with tenses, don't mix mix them together (as in ...adjusted by the Goa'uld (who calls it...).
• When using class names, remember there to be careful of grammatical forms. "Daedalus-class battlecruiser" has the dash because Daedalus describes class, which in turn is (I believe) an adjective of battlecruiser; whereas in "the Daedalus class", no dash is used because Daedalus becomes the adjective of class. I only saw the first case to be any issue with the article, but this is common.

Anyway, just some thoughts. Cheers! — Huntster (t • @ • c) 04:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice, although I am not unfamiliar with these "rules". :-) While some of these MOS violations come from oversight, I bet most of them are in the technology sections of each ship (class). But that's because I neither read nor touched these sections - I am not a tech freak and I couldn't tell an important detail from cruft or original research, so it was better to leave off my hands there completely. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, gotcha. I'll do a sweep in the upcoming days. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 12:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Lost

I was thinking, would the inclusion of Paradise Lost (disambiguation) in a "See also" section be too much? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, too much. I don't see how these two terms would ever be confused or topic-linked with each other, so PL is useless on L (dab). – sgeureka ^t•c 06:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Oops! I can't believe I missed your response (I shall now remove the PL reference). In the meantime, what would be the primary topic in Prodigy? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to pass. "Prodigy" is one of the few English words whose meaning I could/can never remember properly, so I ignore the word whenever I can. :-) – sgeureka ^t•c 06:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of Stargate topics

Hi. I'm here to ask if you wouldn't mind withdrawing your nomination of this AfD. Its leading to a consensus and or snowball to keep, and will likely be closed as such. If you do, I can close it. You can respond on my talk page if you wish, or I can watch yours. I'll be expecting your response. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 09:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer to leave it open for one more day because I may not have made my del rationale clear enough the first time around, and if the consensus still continues to grow towards keep, I'll withdraw. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem. This actually saved me the trouble of DRV. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 09:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Some more late keep !votes, but the AfD will be closed today/soon anyway, so I can as well skip the withdrawing. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

TV Episode article review

Did this ever get off the ground? Are you currently reviewing articles? I would like to assist if you need help. Ursasapien (talk) 10:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

No, no-one works on this now, as far as I know. I was hoping that this changes again when the future of WP:EPISODE gets tackled. Anyway, most of my favorite shows are taken care of (i.e. they are already merged, or they are being expanded...slowly), and all the drama made me feel a little merge-bonked for the past month. But I already have some vague plans for poor fiction articles, so I might as well get back to reviewing episode articles later. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you from Horologium

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed unanimously with the support of 100 editors. Your kindness is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Wizardman, Black Falcon and jc37 for nominating me. — Horologium

Ten

Does the page looks like it could use cleanup? It's just that I can't decide where to put a certain fictional character. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the page could use some cleanup, especially in the SeeAlso section per MOS:DAB#Examples of individual entries that should not be created. The page should IMO also have an acronym section to hold all/most of the "TEN" entries. "music and film" and "arts" may be combined into one section, and that could also hold the character then. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Myst (video game)

I believe I have implemented your fixes. Thanks for taking the time to review! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Dirty Dancing

I'm going to try and take Dirty Dancing to FA again... Since you were one of the principal opposers, I thought I'd check with you, what do you think? --Elonka 13:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll need to read over it again in full and finish the peer review, but I think the article has come a long way, and I don't expect any straight-away opposes anymore. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your time. I was getting really discouraged, especially as I'd set an artificial deadline on myself of trying to get the article to FA before Swayze's death (which appears to be imminent). And unfortunately a few of the FA reviewers are, how shall we say, not as constructive as they might be. So it means a lot to me to get an encouraging comment, thanks.  :) --Elonka 14:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Shoot. Swayze's bad health had completely escaped my mind. I'll try to have the review completed by the day after tomorrow at the latest. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If it's easier, you are also of course welcome to edit the article directly. Whichever works better with your style.  :) --Elonka 14:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I like your Lost theories (I also help out a lot at Lostpedia). I'm really looking forward to this week's episode "Cabin Fever (Lost)", and seeing Horace Goodspeed again.  :) --Elonka 14:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

And here I thought this morning that my theory was absolute crap and that I should take it down. :-) I am just a typofixer on Lostpedia, but I am partial to their timeline articles. As for editing directly - I generally waste too much time second-guessing my grammar, so I usually prefer others to get it right before I make a fool of myself. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

My favorite part of Lostpedia is the "Theories" tab at the top of each page, where I can (usually) read all kinds of interesting OR that would be immediately deleted off of Wikipedia. I also find it a great place for me to type in my own speculations about who is connected to what. I'm especially looking forward to learning more about Annie, Horace, and Olivia. And I'm really enjoying Ben's character arc, as he becomes more and more of a "good guy". ;) --Elonka 17:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Scrubs

I presume that User:86.27.66.246 and User:86.24.147.125 are one and the same, so yes, he as been wandering around randomly undoing redirects without performing any repairs at all. I suspect that this situation is going to get ugly soon. Any thoughts as to how to keep it calm?Kww (talk) 17:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

86.24.147.125's contrib list was empty, I didn't notice the link between them, and Recent Changes showed no sign of someone messing with the ep articles (because the mess has already been fixed), so thanks for pointing out what happened. How to keep it calm? - Let's try to keep calm ourselves (I know it's hard), trust in FICT/EPISODE to get back their guideline status sometime soon, and request article/redirect protection or range blocks where necessary. Each day that the ep article are not repaired, works in favor of not keeping the articles around for longer. If a six months grace period for establishing notability doesn't help the articles in fulfilling the inclusion critera, what will? ;-) – sgeureka ^t•c 17:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Stargate Race and Tech

Hey, I was looking at {{Stargate Races}} and it seems quite similar to {{StargateTech}}. So I was thinking why not merge the two. I am working on a template over at my sandbox and was hoping you could help out - especially considering a lot of the tech articles are up for merger and I do not have time to keep track of all of those.--88wolfmaster (talk) 04:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I really like your sandbox version, it reflects Races in Stargate quite nicely. I have been thinking for five minutes how the entries can be rearranged in the template, but nothing superior came to mind. Yes, there are still a few tech articles that will probably be merged, so the template will get smaller. The currently proposed version of WP:FICT that everyone seems to be quite happy with, would allow for most of the race sublists (characters, technology) to stay, so that the merged template would still be semi-stable. When/If new plans for the race sublists have been decided upon, which may not happen any time soon or ever, only then should we reconsider the basic design of your proposed template. Do you have a name for the template yet? I think you/we should leave a note in the wikiproject before the new template is implemented, just for transparancy and possible further input. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

True Love (film)

I really don't think this is notable enough to have a dab. Could the items be merged with True love (which should probably be renamed True Love) or do you have another idea? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Definitively merge. True Love (film) should then be marked with {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. I am neutral about "True love" versus "True Love", as the term also has a dict-def meaning, i.e. {{wiktionarypar|true love}}. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Stargate image

Yeah, it's one of those that could be argued, I suppose. I'd call it decorative, but there's some reference to it in the text and FUR. Personally, I'd prefer a screenshot that illustrated this sentence - "Due to Black's pregnancy during the filming of the films, the costume department needed to hide Black's bump with appropriate dressing". Black Kite 20:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to say hai

Tinucherian has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend or a possibly new friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Have a great day ! -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 10:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Episodes and Characters 3

Hate to ask the question, but is it time? Kww (talk) 10:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It won't accomplish anything I fear. As long as uninvolved editors/admins don't recognize the extend of the tendentious editing and filibustering of certain inclusionists to keep hopeless articles around, cleanup-interested editors will simply have little chance to clean up on a large scale. I'd rather wait three more months to get TTN and Jack back, at which point FICT is hopefully also up and running again. We can resume like before the first arbcom then, but with a tag-wait-merge-noticeboard-merge approach instead of merge-merge-merge; this takes longer but it has the same desired result. We can do all of that without wasting everyone's time in a third arbcom case, IMO at least. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom really hasn't been helpful in any of this. A case won't do anything. Simply put, this is nothing more than another growing pain for Wikipedia. We're volunteers trying to figure out what to do. -- Ned Scott 12:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I realize I was not invited to this discussion, but I feel compelled to say that I agree with sgeureka that a third ArbCom will not be helpful and with Ned that this whole situation is just a normal part of the growth of the encyclopedia. The first ArbCom ended with, basically, a no decision and the second indicated that the cleanup methodology of some editors was more disruptive than the poor quality articles it was trying to correct. Kww, what do you think a third ArbCom would accomplish? Ursasapien (talk) 06:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Likewise I wasn't invited, but I too agree with the consensus here. Arbitration hasn't worked here. What is needed is for the rough majority of participants to find a compromise they can live with and move on from there. Sgeureka's approach seems solid enough, as long as nobody goes into it with any preconceptions, bias or demands. We're collaborating, and that means we have to work together. Hiding T 09:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I probably shouldn't have hosted this discussion on sgeureka's talk page, but I'll keep it here unless it gets large. I'm just concerned that the sanctions against TTN have turned into an excuse to block him, and will eventually upgrade to a ban no matter what he does, because no matter what he does, some admin will find a way to "broadly interpret" his action as violating his sanction the moment anyone complains. I don't know what avenue will effectively address that problem. Kww (talk) 11:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

it will depend of course on what he does--no one admin can block in a case like this without explicit or implied consensus. There will probably be much more agreement on a complete topic ban than a block. What will effectively address the problem & prevent such action is his not attempting to merge or redirect or delete articles or suggest it to others or do it indirectly. If he cannot refrain, Kww is correct that nothing can help. And I know the difficulty one can have in influencing one's wikifriends. (I'm trying to be objective, but I'm not sure my view on things is welcome here). DGG (talk) 13:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that suggesting merges, redirects, and deletions is a good thing, and he should be allowed to do it if he stays within his arbcom restrictions. People are blocking him when he stays within the restrictions, and that's what needs to be controlled.Kww (talk) 18:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I think if we are fair, the block can be justified based on the wording of the sanctions placed on TTN. Clarification has been requested, but the arbitrators seem somewhat reluctant to clarify. This would appear to indicate a third arbitration case would likewise be futile. Would mediation be of any use? For me, what needs to happen is for both sides to be honest about their goals for Wikipedia, and to respect the other side's goals, and to work out how to accommodate as much of the other side's position as possible. Incidentally, wasn't what you describe the outcome of the first arbitration case? Hiding T 18:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The last one could justify a short block. The previous one was completely unwarranted. As for my goals for Wikipedia, they are simple: ensure that its content is based to the maximum extent possible on independent, third-party sourcing for all topics. Since that eliminates the vast majority of television episodes and fictional characters, it puts me in an unpopular position.Kww (talk) 20:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess that what I think won't matter for long. I guess the squeaky wheel gets the topic ban.Kww (talk) 21:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Need your help here

Think you could give Spider-Man (disambiguation) a few MoS tweaks? Though the page looks ok, it could use some detail. I'd do it, but would like to see a pro have at it first before I get tweaking. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. It's still possible to go with sections called "In television series" instead of the double-starred "Several television series based on the character:". It can also be argued to trim the explanation why people are nicknamed Spiderman, but I think it doesn't hurt to leave it like it is. – sgeureka ^t•c 05:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I've done a little updating. What about the inclusion of links like Ultimate Spider-Man? Should they go in the "See also" section? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Sgeureka, should I add it (and any others) anyway? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, missed your question. I am not so familiar with Spider-Man, but if links like these are added, they should go to the seealso section. The other option is to just add a link to a list for all the titles, which seems to be Bibliography of Spider-Man titles in this case. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

(Images

The one I'd be concerned about is Image:Carnivale Scudder Belyakov.jpg, which doesn't appear to add any major understanding to the average reader, as far as I can see. Black Kite 07:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks!

		RfA: Many thanks
		Many thanks for your participation in my recent request for adminship. I am impressed by the amount of thought that goes into people's contribution to the RfA process, and humbled that so many have chosen to trust me with this new responsibility. I step into this new role cautiously, but will do my very best to live up to your kind words and expectations, and to further the project of the encyclopedia. Again, thank you. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Merges again

I couldn't help but notice that just about every Stargate-related article is being merged into a handfull of huge articles these days. I remember when we talked about this for the episode pages which I could understand merging although I am against it.

I feel that merging just about every single page about anything to do with Stargate into a handfull of huge pages is a bad idea. For one, it makes it harder to find things and it harder to read. When most people find a huge page, it makes them not want to read it rather than several smaller articles.

I know you are trying to do the right thing in the face of these unfair new "notability" rules but honestly, I think it would be better if these pages were deleted rather than merged.

I can understand merging some of the smaller pages that are no bigger than a paragraph but merging bigger pages is not a good thing. The best example is the "Tau'ri starships" article.

My problems with it are:

1. The page is too long and looks bad
2. The term "starship" is from star trek and has never been used on Stargate
3. When several large or small articles are merged, information is always lost as it's deemed unimportant for larger articles
4. That 99% of the Wiki users are constantly reverting these merges only to be overriden by admins. It is clear to me and to many that these changes are not a popular thing

I don't use StargateWiki as it's full of speculation and unprofessional and nobody polices it like they do on Wiki for such changes.

Let me know what you are thinking about all of this.

Vala M (talk) 17:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Not to sound too defensive or apologetic, but all of my proposed mergers are backed up or informed by WP:FICT and WP:WAF as well as my experience writing Wikipedia:Featured topics/Carnivàle (have a look at it to get a better sense where I am coming from). As for your points,

1. That pages are too long despite not establishing notability is a sign that WP:UNDUE is at work; this can be fixed by trimming and secondary sourcing, which requires time, skill, interest and collaboration, all of which I sometimes lack. E.g. I feel that the technology sections in the spaceship articles can be trimmed much more, but that's where I lack knowledge and interest.
2. I couldn't think of a better term at the time, and no one approached me with a better name. Do you have one?
3. The only kind of information that is lost is the kind that shouldn't have been there in the first place. It is unimportant, so removing such information helps against WP:UNDUE.
4. I am not denying that merging and deleting is at times unpopular. But we are (should be?) striving to be a high-quality encyclopedia, and merging and deleting are the means to achieve that.

I will also add that

1. WP:REDIRECTs makes things just as easy to find as before.
2. In my editing Stargate articles on wikipedia, I have removed so much speculation that wikia can't be much worse; in fact, as a big fan of Lostpedia, I value fan speculation. Just not on wikipedia, where every sentence should strive to be 100% verifiable, preferably by secondary sources or dialogue.
3. There aren't many Stargate articles left where I (just speaking for myself) consider a merge beneficial, see the bolded entries at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stargate/Articles. I.e. if there are concerns that I will mindlessly continue a merge crusade, rest assured that I won't, and that my next goal will be working on SG Featured Topics (first: SG-1 characters). But I am also working on non-SG articles, so don't expect any wonders immediately.

– sgeureka ^t•c 20:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I dont see how one can claim that anything at all is backed up by WP:FICT, given the present status of that guideline. There is probably general consensus at one extreme that somethings are too trivial for full articles, and probably that some fictional characters and the like for some fiction at least are notable enough for them, but I do not think there is the least consensus for anything in the middle. i wish there were--whatever the consensus was, it would make editing easier. But there just isnt. My own idea of the way to go in such a situation is to use combination articles for as much as possible in the middle range, but this seems not to be work all that well in practice--people keep either expanding the sections to produce overlong articles or reducing them to bare lists of names.

But in any event deleting is not the solution. Reverting the merges is, and insisting on concurrence for every one of them on the talk page of the article concerned. My own guideline for what belongs in specialised wikis is only the material which would not be of interest except to the hard core fans--anything a general reader might want to know belongs here. DGG (talk) 07:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

FICT defines notability by the existance of significant amounts of real-world information, but that's where nearly all single pieces of SG technology fail. (For the record, I do in fact improve SG articles where I have sources at hand, and I have been careful to not touch the real promising articles). All SG articles go through notability-tagging and merge proposals now for a few weeks, just in case, and we're back to that FICT backs up (or at least informs) the mergers if the articles don't improve; going with WP:N would prove even more fatal for the articles. The middle ground between single articles and one tech list for everything is to keep technology lists by race, and that's what's happening. I am working towards Featured Topics, and articles that can't (at least) become GA or FL are hindering this goal significantly. My proposals and actions have not caused tumults in SG editing circles so far, no one is reverting mergers, everything is fairly pleasant. I'd very much like to set a good example in these difficult times. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that you do these rather well & thoughtfully. And even more, I agree that the best compromise solution is merging, for everything intermediate between totally irrelevant, and important enough for an article. There are two considerations, though: the first is where to place the points of separation, the second is how much content to include in the merge. I agree that the really most important point is to at any rate not delete without a redirect to preserve the content for future reworking. I'm not sure we're all that far apart. DGG (talk)`

Awards as evidence of notability (fiction)

I would be grateful if you would make your viewpoint known at Notability (fiction): AFI example, as I believe your earlier points could result in the guideline being changed. --Gavin Collins (talk) 21:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Time (disambiguation) and Kamehameha

What is the criterion for listing categories on dab pages? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I have never come across such cases before, and I'd remove the categories, at least in the latter case. This may however be a question for WT:MOSDAB. – sgeureka ^t•c 06:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Sgeureka. Here is the link to the topic in case you're interested. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)