Misplaced Pages

• Archive 1

Hugo

They do occasionally give Hugos to TV shows. I specifically put that in as an example for some wiggle room ... if an episode receives a major science fiction or other outside award, it's still notable, even if the award didn't come from an award organization that focuses on TV.Kww 12:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Since I think we shouldn't clutter up the arbcom discussion further, would you consider Annie Awards to be assertion of notability? What distinction are we making between Award nominations and Award wins? While I still don't think CSD is the right option I think a better definition of what episode notability is would be beneficial. Stardust8212 12:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably is better off here, unless it pisses Jack off. Certainly an Annie would count. I would like to get a phrasing that recognizes that awards are awards ... if the NAACP gives a show an award for highlighting a social issue, or similar things, it's a notable episode. There are probably some anime specific awards from Japan that would count. But, if the "Wikipedians that Like South Park" give an award for "most cute lines by Butters in a single episode", that doesn't count. I think it has to be a CSD category. If not, the effort involved in killing the article rises too high again. But, because it's a CSD category, it has to cut a little high, so I think a nomination is sufficient. Kww 13:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

(Jack, if this is a problem feel free to move it to my talk page) My concern with CSD is that they should be the most basic of the basic to delete, almost no thought required to know that the content is not suitable for an encyclopedia. I think we'd have trouble pushing this into a CSD category because it's too narrow a range and too subject to interpretation. I also suspect it could easily backlog CSD and divert resources away from deleting the really bad stuff like copy-vios and attack pages. I just don't see it working so I think we may be better off thinking of another idea. A centralized discussion area for controversial merges/redirects seems like the best idea to me, it has the added benefit of being used for other areas of the encyclopedia that may also have trouble with local consensus being against merge/redirect. I think 7 day discussions similar to AfD (much shorter than the current discussions) where a large number of articles could be discussed all at once would be sufficient to deal with the problem. I also think that once we get rid of most of the current poorly thought out articles new editors won't get the idea that there needs to be an article on every episode of their favorite show just because there's an article about every episode of show X and the creation rate will go down. Of course I'm an optimist. Also, I fully agree with your views on awards, spot on. Stardust8212 14:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is a fuzzy CSD at all: "Article summarizes an episode, and does not assert that the episode is a premiere, a finale, or was nominated for an award" is a fine CSD category. Whether the award is a legitimate award may have to be pushed off to AFD or some discussion project, but if the article doesn't even make the claim, there is no reason to let it get past CSD.Kww 14:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Then what about articles like this one which establishes notability through the conventional method of significant coverage in secondary sources rather than by virtue of being a premiere, finale or award winner? It falls into none of those three categories but is currently a GA. Admittedly I'm biased on that article but I think it is still a good example of my point. Current CSD criteria only allow deletion of articles with no claim of notabiility, even a false claim or an insufficient claim eliminates it from {{db-nn}}, I think many people will balk at making stronger requirements for a distinct subset of articles. In my mind I just can't imagine a version that would be both effective and acceptable to the community at large (feel freee to prove me wrong though). I think many of the policy ideas at the arbcom discussion that fall outside of what they are likely to rule about (CSD, Merge for discussion, applications of policy) need to be brought to a wider comunity discussion without the stigma of "so-and-so deleted my favorite TV show" that has been present at previous discussions. Perhaps all of that should wait until ArbCom has ruled though. Stardust8212 15:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

A nicely written article, very suitable for another wiki project. I see no reason for it to have a Misplaced Pages article for that episode(which, by the way, I greatly enjoyed, because I really like Futurama). It's possible to write a very good article for something that shouldn't have an article at all.Kww 16:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that point then. I don't see any reason why an article on a TV episode fundamentally shouldn't exist if it is possible to establish notability and cover it encyclopedically. Don't get me wrong, I'm still all for removing articles that are nothing but plot summary but I think there is a place in Misplaced Pages for some articles that may not have been premieres, finales or award winners (I'm not a Simpsons fan really but this statement would also apply to You Only Move Twice and Homer's Enemy, two FAs) and that in the grand scheme of things their notability to the real world is more significant than what order they aired in, premieres and finales just happen to get more press. Anyway, I don't really want to get into that now, my theory is to find a way to deal with the articles which obviously shouldn't exist first and then move onto the tougher decisions, I'd put those in the second category. Stardust8212 16:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

We had an edit conflict. Amplifying a bit on this point. The article, and its sourcing are weak. References 1, 3, and 4 are from DVD commentary. This is a compensated source, so it doesn't meet WP:RS. Even if they did, the statements supported are that the audio was recorded late, the Beastie Boys didn't perform a song, and that the producers liked the writers. Not very important statements, and certainly not establishing any importance for the topic. References 10 supports the concept that the producer liked the episode. References 11, 12, 13 and 14 are used solely to support that fact that the episode came out on DVD. Most of the rest are used to document "cultural references", which is "excessive plot summary" in cunning disguise. This really shouldn't be a GA ... it shows how an article can be written to look impressive, but not really be impressive. I've looked over You Only Move Twice before, and came to a similar conclusion.Kww 17:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather not get into the details of the sourcing here, though I'd welcome a discussion of them at the current peer review or on the article's talk page. I'm more interested here in the general idea for all episodes and was using that as a convenient example. I'm still not convinced this will ever fly as a CSD criteria or that articles with at least that much sourcing are inherently non-notable but as I said, I think we can agree to disagree on that point since I doubt either of us would be easily convinced. Stardust8212 18:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with this being talked about here. I will leave this unarchived for the duration of the case. I feel that winning a major award is a sure-fire establishment of notability. If it's just a nomination and/or the award is not-so-major, things get less clear-cut. I also see the limitations of a CSD criteria for episodes — things have to be be clear to the admin processing the CSD request. In all probability, this is something that can only handle a portion of the episode (and character) articles that, reasonable, should go away. For such articles that are farther 'along' but still don't really cut ti, there's redirection with the possibility of trans-wiki-ing out-here.

One thing I want to state quite clearly is that I feel that the burden of trans-wiki-ing stuff needs to fall on those editors who wish to get involved with whatever external site. I have no interest. This is another reason to redirect instead of delete; interested editors can always go searching for their missing article.

FYI, I won't be around for a few days. Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Belldandy paragraph

The first paragraph is indeed sourced, but could probably use some context rather than just a single quote out of the piece. Regardless, though, I wouldn't object or remove it again if it were put back. Seraphimblade 17:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Sheldon

I don't know if you follow the web-comic "Sheldon", but just in case you don't, here is today's strip.Kww (talk) 12:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I have never even heard of "Sheldon" — but I laughed heartily. Do pass that link around a bit. --Jack Merridew 12:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

LOL. Sad really that it's so bloody true! Eusebeus (talk) 15:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hurray

I applaud this edit. I could not muster the courage myself to do it, but you did. Therefore, this message is appropriate. User:Krator (t c) 11:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

There is precedent for this. Sigs that are annoying or or attention-seeking are a form of trolling. Refactoring them is easy in an external text editor, just search and replace (and mine remembers recent pairs). If it was up to me, sigs would not be customizable at all. --Jack Merridew 11:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah! My Goddess!

Noticed that you never got an answer as to how the Japanese Misplaced Pages deals with it. It has one article on the complete series ... OVAs, TV series, etc. The article on ヴェルザンディ (Belldandy) is more or less on the Norse goddess, and the anime persona is referenced there. Episodes are listed by title only ... no plot summaries are given.

FWIW, I'm reasonably Japanese literate. Can't read quickly, but I can read.Kww (talk) 17:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't read Japanese at all. I'm not surprised to hear your summary; most of the en.articles seem to have been written by one fan. There is an open merge proposal on the characters. Feel free to get the ball rolling again. --Jack Merridew 17:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Well Done

		The Original Barnstar
		For general yeomanship and for judicious use of the word meretricious. Eusebeus (talk) 17:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Language is a poor enough means of communication as it is. So we ought to use all the words we’ve got. --Jack Merridew 18:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stop changing my signature

You are unwilling changing others signature, please stop. I am doing this in WP:GF, and would like you to stop. FangzofBlood 20:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Then you change your sig to something reasonable. That would be something that is not so obviously attention-seeking and actually refers to your username. You should review WP:USERNAME and WP:SIG and consider, honestly, what you're doing here. If you persist this will go against you. Really. --Jack Merridew 20:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Done, I am sorry about earlier, I have a strong ego. FangzofBlood 22:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom edits

See response here — Rlevse • Talk • 21:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I was just reading it. --Jack Merridew 21:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

He is ok with my current Signature

I am not really going to changed the text because I have had similar wordings in my previous signs as well, I am just happy it fits the requirements to his needs. FangzofBlood 23:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok. FangzofBlood 00:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Why thank you

For the revert! I appreciate it. I (talk) 02:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It's what watchlists are for! (I have 2,000 pages on mine) --Jack Merridew 02:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I reward you the Socratic Barnstar!

		The Socratic Barnstar
		I reward this barnstar for your reasonable arguments to defend justice and order Fangz of Blood 03:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, and thank you for adjusting the link-text of your sig.

and excuse my misreading of it a moment ago, I'm tired --Jack Merridew 03:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

signature

this isn't a request...i'm TELLING you to change your signature now. stop harassing my friends, and change the signature. thanks. RingtailedFox 17:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

your post doesn't even make any sense. you're telling me to change my sig to - what? - some annoying thang such as you're using? welcome to the top of my to-do list. --Jack Merridew 07:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to hell, my friend. You won't get anywhere by telliung me to change my signature to something else (which you also never said, either). as well. i'm not going to change no matter how much you whine about it. get a life. RingtailedFox 12:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, you seem to understand that I've suggested you change your sig by posting here. Secondly, see this message I posted to your talk page. You should also watch the personal attacks. I am not going to "whine" about it. I will, however, work on it. Trust me. --Jack Merridew 13:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

E-Mail

You do not have one set. I think you should change that. Having an email set is useful. I (talk) 23:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Second that. Also FYI: . Eusebeus (talk) 05:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

  I've enabled this. I am, however, wary of this and may well ignore messages (this concern is not directed at you two). --Jack Merridew 08:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

  I've sent you one. However, I don't think it worked. I (talk) 18:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

  Received and answered. --Jack Merridew 18:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Dragons of Wiki....

hey i may not like you at all but... this is a diffrent matter and i happen to give people a fiar chance on each topic. you are Very bold and you would make a great dragon. so if you would like to join you can check my subpage that is still under construction but you should be able to find it among the clutter.. oh and i think it has been vandlised so..could you help me? i can't get onto the page..(my user page)well if you don't help with the page its ok but we are editors and are diffrences should be set aside when dealing with vandles. anyway please join the dragons who are The Few, The Bold, The Dragons ANOMALY-117 (talk) 01:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting ambiguous-voice you write in. I assume you're referring to Misplaced Pages:WikiDragon linked on your user page — which says it should not be taken seriously, so I won't. Regards, Jack Merridew 07:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

gettin' siggy with it

thank you for being specific! now i know what's in violation, and i can change it accordingly. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 13:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Glad to hear it; looking forward to seeing it. --Jack Merridew 13:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I take it the box outline's not up to par, right? RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 13:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Ya, it's the prominent box that is over-the-top. Looks much better, thanks. --Jack Merridew 13:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I responded to to your comment in the AfD

I look forward to your response. Odessaukrain (talk) 14:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the correction.

Odessaukrain (talk) 14:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I was already replying there... now saved. --Jack Merridew 14:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Denied prod for American Chillers

Hello, I have denied the prod for this article because I did not find it was a clear-cut case of spam. I am not saying that the article should not ultimately be deleted, I am just saying that prod's are reserved for non-controversial and easy deletions where the article in question clearly meets the deletion criteria specified. I would rather see this article undergo a discussion at AfD. Thanks, JERRY _contribs 14:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. In your edit summary you said it "does not steer readers to a place of purchase" yet the page offers a link to americanchillers.com which in turn offers "Click here to order American Chillers books, shirts, hats, and more". However, I do see how you can still view this as not clear-cut. I'll think on it and AfD it, or not, tomorrow. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw the path to purchase that you describe, but it was "3 clicks" away, which puts it in a gray area, in my mind. Thanks. JERRY _contribs 14:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Removal of D&D (and other) related prods

I am again removing some of the tags you added en masse. Please cease this disruptive behavior. Have you honestly read the references provided? Do you realize that many of them are secondary sources? Rather than getting into an edit war (and wasting endless time) I would like you to explain what's wrong with these articles. Ideally each one. I only removed the prods on the ones I felt had enough documentation. It seems you are putting them on every D&D deity and module. Hobit (talk) 15:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

You really should use the correct terms for things. I did not remove any prods from articles, I restored clean-up tags that you removed. I have not (yet) looked at most of what you've actually done. For the most part, I am not the one who added the tags in the first place. Regards, Jack Merridew 12:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring on this issue and discuss things. Thanks --Pak21 (talk) 12:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

You really should use the correct terms for things. I did not remove any prods from articles, I restored clean-up tags that you removed. I have not (yet) looked at most of what you've actually done. For the most part, I am not the one who added the tags in the first place. Regards, Jack Merridew 12:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly which edits of mine are you referring to? --Pak21 (talk) 12:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that was an edit conflict; my reply was to Hobit — I'm not edit-warring and I'm not sure what you want to discuss. Hobit is removing clean-up tags that seem warranted. The proper outcome here is one of: the concern is address or the articles will end up redirected or deleted. --Jack Merridew 12:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Further to all this, Hobit is at least starting to discuss these issues, for example at Talk:Dwellers of the Forbidden City. You simply reverted his change again; can you please explain why you did that, rather than joining the discussion? Dungeon is an interesting issue as it was not published by TSR/WotC in 2004. --Pak21 (talk) 12:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)