Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:17, 15 August 2013

/Archive1

Re: No Rest for the Wicked FAC

It's iffy without seeing the image, but I'd say no, the text can stand by itself for the most part (although IIRC the article doesn't mention all the stuff taking place in front of a green/bluescreen.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 19:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. You should really archive this page! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 19:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for pointing that out. I never noticed that I forgot to mention the green screen. It has been added to the text. Ωphois 19:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Fresh Blood

All looks good.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

FLC

I have adressed your concerns, from the Family Guy season 1. Pedro J. 15:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congrats on the successful efforts at achieving WP:FA for Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/No Rest for the Wicked (Supernatural)/archive2! ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 01:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Longleat

Ummmmm, why in the world would I need to source that? If you don't believe me, just watch the movie..... ASGtheDON (talk) 00:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Peter Petrelli

Hello, would you mind telling me why you reverted my removal of huge masses of unsourced cruft? The article was a mess. It needs a short, concise plot summary (see WP:PLOT), not that gargantuan thing that made the page unreadable (and unnecessary non-free images). This has been a problem for years, so I took action. The Wordsmith 04:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

If you feel it is a problem, then by all means trim it. But please do not entirely erase it and then task someone else with restarting from scratch. Ωphois 14:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I actually did plan on creating a useful summary. I had to get rid of that monstrosity first though, to make the page readable while I did so. The Wordsmith 16:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

My apologies then. Ωphois 16:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I probably should have clarified my intent in the edit summary, anyway. The Heroes character articles have been a problem for years, another 24 hours isn't going to hurt it. The Wordsmith 16:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Running Man

Hi, I would like to know why you are always reverting my changes on the Running Man page. If there is something wrong, you can edit it but why revert everything. I do not see why everything I add or change is inappropriate. I am the one who created and who updates this page. Please give me a reason as to why my changes are inappropriate. For example, Lizzy is not a fixed cast member, I referenced it on the episodes page. However, stating that I don't provide references when there are no references for her being a fixed member either doesn't make sense to me. Aman329 (talk) 03:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The revert was meant for the ratings section. Ωphois 04:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the misunderstanding, but the ratings are cited. If you want more specific citations on the site as to specific dates, that can be provided. Aman329 (talk) 04:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Currently, the only citation given is for a website's main page. You will need to add those specific URL's to prove each rating. Ωphois 04:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

That won't be a problem. Thank you for taking the time to sort this out. Aman329 (talk) 04:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for not discussing it sooner. For the past year we've had to deal with a now blocked user who used to edit Korean articles, and would keep adding the ratings while refusing to list any sources. She occasionally comes back with sockpuppets, so I thought you were her. Ωphois 04:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

It took a while, but I have cited all the ratings. Hopefully this won't be a problem anymore. I should have cited it properly in the first place, thanks again. Aman329 (talk) 05:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Great! Although, per wiki policy, the ratings should not be in the collapsible tag. Ωphois 16:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Lowercase title

We had the title displaying the proper case for iCarly. Do you have any idea why it won't now? --Confession0791 02:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

iCarly episode split

I am going to start working on the split on my project page. I am going to try to find as much production info as I can find. I have seen other acricles that don't even have that information. Any way I was wondering Do you know of artciles for the season that have been created but redirected and when time comes I will post them there. If you want you can look at any of the work I am going to do opn my project page when it is up and make any changes you thing that it might need. Just let me know you made some changes. I am hoping to get this up and running by the end of next month.I do agree what Aussielenged said on the talk pageJoey Tomson (talk) 19:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured list candidates/30 Rock (season 4)/archive1

Can you swing by again? Thanks. The summaries have been copyedited twice now. Courcelles 05:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations

Great work on Taare Zameen Par. Thanks for making it a featured article. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

X-Men video games FLC

Hi. I replied at the FLC for List of X-Men video games. I hope you can revisit the list to assess the changes. (Guyinblack25 20:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC))\

Supernatural Season-1 Summary

Hey Ophois, why did you revert my editing of the said summary as "The season ends with a near-fatal accident of the father and the sons."?? Rockin291 (talk) 03:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)rockin291

Orphaned non-free image File:Castielinfobox.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Castielinfobox.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 04:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on May 18, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/May 18, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or at Misplaced Pages talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Misplaced Pages doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch* 19:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Taare Zameen Par is a 2007 Bollywood drama film directed by Aamir Khan, written by Amole Gupte, and produced by Aamir Khan Productions. The film explores the life and imagination of eight-year-old Ishaan (Darsheel Safary). Although he excels in the arts, his poor academic performance leads his parents to send him to a boarding school. Ishaan's new art teacher (Aamir Khan) suspects that he is dyslexic, and helps him to overcome his disability. The film made its theatrical debut in India on 21 December 2007, and UTV Home Entertainment released a DVD for Indian audiences in 2008. Less than two years later Walt Disney Home Entertainment released an international edition DVD titled Like Stars on Earth, marking the first purchase of distribution rights for an Indian film by a global company. Taare Zameen Par has received several awards, including the Filmfare Best Film Award for 2008 and the 2008 National Film Award for Best Film on Family Welfare. It was India's official entry for the 2009 Academy Awards Best Foreign Film, and the film's failure to progress to the nominations short list sparked a debate about why no Indian film has ever won an Oscar. Media outlets made comparisons between Taare Zameen Par and the British drama Slumdog Millionaire, which won several Oscars that same year. (more...)

Supernatural (season 1)

Your reversal of my edit, with the offensive edit summary, is highly uncollegial. Perhaps discussing it first would have been preferable to the slap in the face. 216.93.212.245 (talk) 17:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Taare Zameen Par

I forgot to add the copyright tag, now fixed it. Anyways why did you remove the entire infobox? If you're reversing edit, please think of what you're doing. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harikrishnanpv.nair ans (talk • contribs) 17:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I knew what I was doing. The infobox is not necessary, as everything is explained in prose. The image does not meet non-free image rules, as it does not help one's understanding of the soundtrack by showing a picture that is more or less identical to the infobox image. The purpose you listed on the image also lists it as the main infobox image, which it is not. Ωphois 20:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

What on earth is your problem? Check Inception and Inception (soundtrack) for instance. So what would it be okay for me to change the poster and make it look different? Anyways what's ther reason for removing the infobox as a WHOLE? Seriously? This takes a lot of effort and what you're doing is being a pain. Infobox IS necessary because I've to update the chronolgy of the composers (Shankar Ehsaan Loy) which can't be done without an infobox. Get it?HK 19:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

You have cited two separate articles, which does not make sense seeing as TZP is one article... Those are also not FA's, so they are not held to as high standards as this article is. And the infobox IS NOT necessary, as the few tidbits of information are already stated in the paragraph right next to it. There is no point in putting a whole infobox of redundant information to list part of a chronology for people who have their own article. Ωphois 20:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Lage Raho Munnabhai has infobox, for instance. I might as well create a wiki for the soundtrack then. Is that fine with you?HK 04:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, you are trying to compare apples to oranges. Lage Raho Munnabhai's soundtrack section is pretty much just the tracklisting, so an infobox helps to display the missing info. This is not the case with TZP. Anyways, I really don't see any need for a separate article when the main article entirely covers the topic. An article for just the soundtrack would also lack notability. Ωphois 04:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you site sources that say Infobox should not be used when there's no missing info? Almost every featured movie wiki has a soundtrack wiki of its own, so what's your point? HK 03:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harikrishnanpv.nair ans (talk • contribs)

And most of those soundtrack articles and very short and lack notability, and pretty much are word for word what is already in the main articles. Just because people in the past created poor articles doesn't mean it has to continue. Ωphois 03:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

If you are so intent on having a chronology for the trio, why not just create a nav box for them? Ωphois 16:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Contribution

Hi Ophios, could you review Family Guy season 1's FLC review, since you commented on it's first nomination. Pedro J. 19:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Responded. Pedro J. 23:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Artical has been copy edited. Pedro J. 19:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Responded. Pedro J. 20:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay took care of that and left a response on the review page. Pedro J. 00:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Fixed typos and some choppy sentences. Pedro J. 00:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

TZP

Hi. As the main contributor to the Taare Zameen Par article, could you please state your opinions of the gross discrepancies mentioned in the talk page? Secret of success 09:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

WP Heroes (TV series)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Heroes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Conversion to a task force is proposed and discussed in the talk page. Although I have no interest on the show, feel free. --George Ho (talk) 15:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

June 2012

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Supernatural (season 6). When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Coekon (talk) 23:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force

Hello Ophois!, we are looking for editors to join WikiProject Indian cinema task force, a joint task force run between WikiProject Films and WikiProject India to ensure that Indian cinema-related articles on Misplaced Pages are written in an encyclopedic style, in a neutral manner using verifiable and reliable sources. We thought you might be interested, hoping that you will join us. Thanks!! Click here to add your name.

. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 10:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Like Stars on Earth

Do not revert legitimate changes, please. Especially without giving any reason. Remember that this is English Misplaced Pages. Film Fan (talk) 23:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Supernatural (season 3)

Lead

• "Season three of Supernatural, an American television series, began airing on October 4, 2007. This is the third season to air on the CW television network. Season three regular cast members include Jared Padalecki, Jensen Ackles, Katie Cassidy and Lauren Cohan.

  How many times do you have to keep repeating that it's the third season?

• "This season focuses on Sam and Dean continuing to hunt".

  Continuing to hunt what?

• "... and a rivalry with Bela Talbot (Cohan), a professional thief who steals the Colt".

  A rivalry between Bela and who? And what's "the Colt"?

Malleus Fatuorum 00:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to clean up the lead. Do you mind saving that for last? Ωphois 01:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd prefer to look at the article when you think you've finished with it. Malleus Fatuorum 02:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I'll have it done tomorrow. Thanks. Ωphois 02:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Taare Zameen Par

I am not an administrator, so I cannot do much. If you are talking about User talk:Jsigned, I don't see any edits by you on their talk page. Maybe discuss your reasoning there first, and add links to the discussions that made decisions on this article and all Indian articles to which you refer in the edit comments. I will back you up as well. If you still get no response or change in behavior, there area a few avenues where you can get administrator help. BollyJeff | talk 23:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Found discussion and added link. BollyJeff | talk 23:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Supernatural Seasons

I've been noticing that you revert edits on the season articles regarding cast just before the episodes synopses. I was just wondering why you revert some to not having the cast names, and some with. Surely if one or two of the season articles have cast names they all should? – Blue☆Stars83 16:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The first three seasons already have sections related to casting, so having a section that lists cast members for those is redundant. I left it for the other articles because they don't have detailed information present already. Ωphois 17:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Cast and Casting are different. After going through each seasons articles, I've noticed that one or two have both a cast AND casting section, or just a cast OR casting section. Maybe, to tidy up/equal the articles out, there should be either 1, a cast section above episode synopses or 2, a casting section after the episode synopses? – Blue☆Stars83 18:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

There definitely shouldn't be two separate sections, and production information should generally go after the episode synopses, so option 2 is the best one to go with. I don't really monitor the season articles past the third one because I plan to revamp them later to get them to FA status. Ωphois 18:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the articles are fine how they right now to be honest, but just need a little cleaning up, and all the season articles to have the same layout. As for the Cast/Casting section issue, just arrange a Casting section below the Episode Synopses on all articles. – Blue☆Stars83 18:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

An idea for the cast section for you. If you check out Friends (Season 1) and look at the cast section. It like that for all 10 season of Friends. Maybe that would be an idea? – Blue☆Stars83 18:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

That is more of a list for stunt casting of celebrities, and other actors who aren't included in the casting section though. For articles, it's always better to have prose rather than lists. Ωphois 18:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that having a table type thing like that, that covers everything, from a seasons main cast to guest stars and recurring cast would be more suitable. Whereas a prose could take up a lot of space, that might not necessarily be needed. It may look samey as the Friends episodes articles but it would look a lot more tidier. But hey, that's just an opinion. – Blue☆Stars83 19:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The current formats have already been approved by the FAC process, and I believe it's a policy that prose should be provided where possible. Ωphois 19:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Ahhhh, then I take it that the Casting section below the episode synopses will be the section to be kept and worked into all epsiode articles? – Blue☆Stars83 19:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I only say because some of the articles have a cast section above the synopses. So I'm not sure if the FAC refers to the Cast or Casting sections? If you want any help in dealing with writing up the Casting sections so the articles can get done a bit quicker and not one at a time, let me know! – Blue☆Stars83 19:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Season 2 in season --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Supernatural (season 2)

This is a note to let the main editors of Supernatural (season 2) know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on December 7, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/December 7, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Season two of Supernatural, an American paranormal drama television series created by Eric Kripke, premiered September 28, 2006, and concluded May 17, 2007, airing 22 episodes. The season focuses on protagonists Sam (Jared Padalecki, pictured) and Dean Winchester (Jensen Ackles) as they track down Azazel, the demon responsible for the deaths of their mother Mary and father John. They attempt to discover the demon's plan for Sam and other psychic children—young adults who were visited by Azazel as infants and given abilities, and whose mothers often then died in a fire. During their travels, they use their father's journal to help them carry on the family business—saving people and hunting supernatural creatures. The season aired Thursdays, 9:00 pm ET in the United States, and averaged only about 3.14 million viewers. The cast and crew garnered many award nominations, but the episodes received mixed reviews from critics. While both the brotherly chemistry between the lead actors and the decision to finish the main storyline were praised, the formulaic structure of the episodes was criticized. The season was internationally syndicated, released on DVD as a six-disc box, and made available through digital retailers. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• Congrats! Here's a screen shot of your FA article on the Main Page. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Awesome. I missed seeing it on the main page, so thanks for the screenshot! Ωphois 18:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey.

Just noticed you removed part of your comment on the Talk:Star Trek into Darkness page. Can I ask why? It was a justified question. MisterShiney ✉ 18:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I had originally put that because I thought he was asking for a reliable source for "Into" being capitalized, but then I realized he meant for the inclusion of a colon. Ωphois 19:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Ahh cool. This conversation has gone around in so many circles it has my head spinning. About time it gets sorted. MisterShiney ✉ 19:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	In particular for the ongoing discussion on Star Trek into Darkness regarding a pesky little I. At the end of the day, it may not have been resolved but we all did work together to try and get it sorted, even if we did feel at times we were banging our heads on our desks and calling our computer screens idiots. MisterShiney ✉ 14:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Sesame Street research

Ophois, I wanted to let you know that I've completed addressing your comments at this article's FAC . I'm a little concerned, since it's received no support so far and that's exactly the reason it failed its first FAC. So if could take another look at it, I'd be much appreciative. Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 06:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi again, here I am with an update: you probably already know that this article failed its 2nd FAC, so after waiting the obligatory two weeks, I've re-submitted it for its third. If you could go over and take a look at what I've done since the last time, I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

LIKE STARS ON EARTH

I posted a reply in the talk section. Instead of casually reverting and calling my correct changes "disruptive", try talking to me. Explain how I'm wrong. Film Fan (talk) 13:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Film Fan has agreed to a proposal I put up at Talk:Taare_Zameen_Par#Lead_section. Please consider accepting this. BollyJeff | talk 22:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Ophois. If you want the Slumdog sentence that I deleted kept, then cite it! Film Fan (talk) 14:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC) It is cited in the article itself. That is how leads work. Ωphois 15:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, that's how leads work, is it. It should be cited the first time it's mentioned. Film Fan (talk) 16:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that is how it works, to un-clutter the lead. Please see WP:CITELEAD. BollyJeff | talk 16:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

In which case, I may point out that it's not important information. Surely its mention later in the article suffices. To say that a film a film has been compared to another is really saying nothing without elaborating. Film Fan (talk) 16:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Mother India peer review

I don't know if you are interested. The article Mother India is undergoing a peer review. You can have a look.--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

FTRC

I have placed the topic to Supernatural season 2 up for Featured Topic review. If you agree or disagree with this nomination please voice your thoughts there. GamerPro64 00:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Supernatural characters

Hola.

To make it clear right up front, I fully believe your edits were in good faith. I am writing below in order to open up dialogue about the edits, with the hope that we may come to a mutual consensus.

I see you removed the birthdates and deathdates I added for the various fictional characters of Supernatural. Please let me know if there is a rule that such information may not be included.

I searched for such a rule. The closest I found was this:

Fictography – an article or section about a fictional character written like a biography (placing, for example, undue emphasis on titles or birthdates despite their being unimportant to the plot or interpretation).

I found that here.

The question may amount to: "What constitutes undue emphasis?" I don't personally think I was creating an undue level of emphasis by adding the bits of information I added; but I admit that, since "undue" is somewhat subjective, that can be debated in good faith.

Still, this sentence comes from a section called "The problem with in-universe perspective." In that section, it says:

The threshold of what constitutes in-universe writing is making any effort to re-create or uphold the illusion of the original fiction by omitting real-world info.

I certainly didn't omit any real-world info. Anyone reading the articles will know, without a shred of doubt, that these characters are fictitious. Therefore, I feel I was keeping with the spirit of the rule as I understood it.

Moreover, the line above about birthdates is a bullet point introduced by the following line:

Features often seen in an inappropriate, in-universe perspective include

So, while birthdates are often featured in articles written from an in-universe perspective, the mere fact that a birthdate is featured does not, in and of itself, make an article one that is written from an in-universe perspective. My understanding is that birthdates could be included in articles about fictional characters, provided that the article is not written to make the character appear to be non-fictional.

Let's use Sam as a good example. After my edit, the introduction to the Sam article read as follows:

Samuel "Sam" Winchester (2 May 1983–present) is a fictional character and one of the two protagonists of The CW Television Network's Supernatural along with his older brother Dean. He is portrayed by Jared Padalecki.

Anybody reading that would know immediately that Sam is a fictional character. I do not believe my edit provided undue emphasis on the character's birthdate. I certainly didn't omit any real-world info, nor did I do anything to make the character appear non-fictional. The article, even with my edit, is not written from an in-universe perspective.

There are fan wikis out there that are written to make it look like the fictional characters are real persons. We can compare the Sam introduction to the introduction to this Zefram Cochrane article on memory-alpha.org:

Doctor Zefram Cochrane was a Human scientist in the 21st century. An eccentric genius, he was the inventor of warp drive on Earth and became the first recorded Human to travel faster than light, prompting official first contact with the Vulcans.

The Zefram Cochrane introduction is written from an in-universe perspective, and I completely understand (and agree) that it would be inappropriate for Misplaced Pages. But I cannot come to the same conclusion about the Sam Winchester introduction above.

All that said, I wish to reiterate that I fully believe your edits were in good faith. I hope that, given my above explanations, I may have convinced you that we should re-add the birthdates and deathdates of the various Supernatural characters, provided that no efforts are made to make the characters appear to be anything other than fictional.

Best regards,

allixpeeke (talk) 05:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem though is that their birthdates aren't notable at all, and (with the exception of Sam) have no impact on the series. Including it would just be adding unnecessary information. If an era or specific year a character was born was important, it would be in the plot section. Ωphois 23:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I appreciate hearing the alternative perspective.

Moreover, I can understand and accept the perspective that, for most of the characters, their ages are not highly significant. I can understand researchers not caring about Gordon Walker's age, for example.

But, I would still like to make the case that, for members of the Winchester family, birthyear and deathyear information is highly significant. Before I make that case, however, I must first make an allusion to actual people.

When a person accesses an encyclopedia in order to research an actual person, the birth and death information is usually readily available immediately after the name, and I surmise that the reason it is made available in that fashion is so that the researcher can easily and quickly fit the object of her/his research into a cultural time frame. Knowing that Madison was born in the eighteenth century and that Kennedy was born in the twentieth century can greatly help the researcher understand the figures based on their likely experiences and the various elements of culture and technology that surrounded them. I've no doubt that you agree, so I shan't labour this point any further.

What I would like to stress is that I believe the same can be said of the Winchesters, and especially about Sam and Dean. Sam's birthdate is probably the most significant birthdate of anyone in the series, as I'm sure you will agree. But Dean's relationship with Sam makes Dean's birthdate almost as significant. Obviously, Sam doesn't have any real memory of his mother (at least outside of time travel), but Dean, being four years his elder, does have memories of their mother. Having both birthdates readily accessible makes it easy to calculate just how old Dean was when he lost his mother, and losing one's mother just a few months before turning five will undoubtedly have a major impact on any child. We also know that Dean's and Sam's childhood relationship to one another was extremely significant, since Dean essentially had to raise his own brother. The fact that they were only four years apart--that Dean was himself a child taking on a parental role--had a significant impact on how the two related to one another, and to their father. It's also worthwhile to have that information readily accessible in order to figure out where the two main characters fall growing up within the socio-political landscape of the '80s and early '90s. Surely, we can agree that it would be a very different show if the characters had grown up instead in the socio-political landscape of the '60s and early '70s, and that's a mere two decades of difference. Different cultural norms invariably affect the way persons (real or fictional) act or behave. So, it would seem to me that, in the very least, we should include quick birthdate references for the two main characters, if not in parentheses immediately following the names, at least in the character information boxes on the right-hand side of the screen.

Still, I do not wish for my case to end there, because the most significant date in the entire series--even more significant than Sam's birthdate--is Mary Winchester's deathdate. This is the event that turned John--and eventually Dean and Sam--into hunters. Currently, the Mary Winchester blurb gives her deathyear, but does not specify the date. A researcher would have to go to the Sam page, search through article to find Sam's birthdate, then add six months. Even then, however, the researcher may be unsure, since the researcher might not know if the "six months" thing is an approximation or an exact measurement. By specifically saying "(1954–2 November 1983)," the researcher knows that it is not an approximation, that "six months after Sam's birth" is an exact measurement down to the day. (It also allows the researcher to easily see that Mary was less than thirty when she died, although I will admit that her age is much less significant than the age of other characters.)

Finally, we have John Winchester, who was also born in 1954 and who died on the 19th of July, 2006. While his deathdate is not as significant as his wife's, and his birthyear not as significant as his sons', nobody had a more profound impact on Dean's and Sam's development than John--not even Bobby. In the character info box on the right-hand side of the John Winchester page, it lists his nationality as American. Methinks his age and birthyear are equally significant as his nationality. Just as he wouldn't be the same man with the same values were he to have been born, say, behind the Iron Curtain, he also wouldn't have been the same man with exactly the same values were he to have been born in America a hundred years earlier.

In summation, while I can accept the point that, for many of the characters, birth and death information is not highly significant, I think a case can be made that, at least for the Winchester clan, the significance is present. In the very least, I think such information should be included in the character info boxes for those characters who have their own articles, like Sam, Dean, and John, since the info boxes are essentially quick reference guides, and since I think age is more significant than, in the case of John e.g., that he was a former mechanic.

Best regards,

allixpeeke (talk) 16:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

If an age of a character or age gap of characters is significant, it would already be mentioned in the plot sections. Ωphois 00:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Dear Ωphois,

Please take no offence to my saying this, but I made a litany of points, and you only attempted to respond to one of them. Moreover, your one response fails to accurately address the specific point it attempts to address. The point I made is that easy-to-access, easy-to-find birth-and-death info is far more useful to researchers who wish to use this encyclopedia for research than birth-and-death info which is buried somewhere in an article. Adding "(1954–2 November 1983)" doesn't take anything away from the article, and only serves to improve it.

Another point, which also seemed to get ignored, was that John, Dean, and Sam each have character info boxes on the right-hand side of their articles. I made the suggestion that, even if we don't include birth-and-death info immediately following the character names, we could put that info in the character info boxes, because John Winchester's birthyear and deathyear were certainly at least as significant as his nationality (which is already listed in his info box), and were undoubtedly more significant than his having formerly been a mechanic (which is also already listed in his info box).

Do you have any objection to the inclusion of birth-and-death info in the info boxes?

Respectfully yours,

allixpeeke (talk) 01:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)