User talk:TTN/Archive 10 - Misplaced Pages

< User talk:TTN

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wilhelmina Will (talk | contribs) at 01:00, 10 November 2007 (→arcane). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 01:00, 10 November 2007 by Wilhelmina Will (talk | contribs) (→arcane)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Archives
June 2006 to September 2006 September 2006 to January 2007 January 2007 to April 2007 April 2007 to May 2007 May 2007 to June 2007 June 2007 June 2007 to July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 to October 2007

Married with children episodes category

Hi there - my understanding of the conventions of Category:Television episodes by series is that episodes should be categorized by show there, not in the parent category of Category:Television episodes. That way, the episodes can more easily be found when looking through Category:Television episodes by series. Ordinarily small categories are to be avoided, I entirely agree, but I think that this situation is an exception to WP:OCAT#Small with no potential for growth. Any thoughts? Regards, Bencherlite 01:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, looking at the MwC category again, the list of episodes article would fit into the episodes category as well. Plus it's not as though there is no possibility of expansion of the category: further articles may yet be written about other episodes. Bencherlite 01:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

There will be no need for thirty small categories. That whole category will eventually be pared down to around five to ten series with more than ten episodes, so any others will be one to three episodes at most. It will be just as easy to use the main category, and the list category to find search through them. The chance for more episodes is rather slim at this point (the previous articles were redirected, and only a couple showed potential). If it does get to that point, the category can be recreated. TTN 01:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, you seem to be doing a lot of editing in the field of TV episodes, so I'm perfectly happy to let you get on with it. I keep thinking that I've seen some useful comments one way or the other at WP:CFD recently, so I may have a dig around and see what I can find, for my own reference. Do you happen to recall any such discussions? Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, you can reinstate the speedy tag on the MwC episodes category. Regards, Bencherlite 01:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Found something, anyway. At this discussion, the eponymous category was deleted, with comments that episodes of a TV show X don't belong in an eponymous category X but in a category of X episodes. Just a thought. Bencherlite 01:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

With that many episodes (and the fact that the category was useless), it makes sense, but this is just two articles for one category. TTN 01:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Would it be helpful...

if you annotated the message that you leave on "list of episode" article talk pages to state that other users would be responsible for merging any plot information into the list? Also that in most cases this information can be obtained from the history of the redirected episode articles? I don't mind doing this in a few cases, but I don't have time to do them all. Hewinsj 18:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it'll probably be a good idea to do that in the future. TTN 18:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello again; just wanted to make sure of this:

TTN, you did say that there were issues with those episode articles I did for Iggy Arbuckle, which made them unsuitable for Misplaced Pages, right? And another user, in the debate over their fates, said that a few paragraphs in the episode page would be sufficient for info-giving, right? Well, at the bottom of the Iggy Arbuckle article, there is a list of the episodes; and in there I've put much of the info that was originally in the individual articles. I plan on doing that for the other episodes mentioned as well. You don't hold anything against that, do you? You aren't going to go and erase all of that, are you? (Begins to shake nervously.) Wilhelmina Will 00:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

3rd Rock from the Sun Episodes

I am just giving you a heads up that I am going to revert your changes to the 3rd Rock from the Sun articles. You are flat wrong that the redirect took place because of the discussion. The discussion was to keep and not redirect, so per the discussion, I will be reverting your edit. However, before I do so, I will give you opportunity to show me that, outside of your personal interpretation, the community wants this. I will not be backing down on this, so be prepared to bring support. Nor am I trying to be disruptive, however, per the discussion of the editors, your interpretative changes were not warranted and will be reverted. I will give you a few days, however I will also be reading this post to see if the community backs you and your interpretations. This is not an attack, but a strong disagreement on how you are interpreting things. In good nature, but a disagreement of your actions. --Maniwar (talk) 21:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Consensus is global (policies and guidelines), not local. As you failed to show any way for them to meet the policies and guidelines, the opinions presented were irrelevant. If you must have numbers, there are plenty of people that feel the same way as I do, so we can always take that route. Seriously, why don't you do something productive with your editing time like bring the main article to featured article status or the episode list to featured list status? Fighting to keep four very substandard articles is quite silly. TTN 22:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Scrubs

Hi, in the past I believe I have called you names over your incessant diatrabe against TV show articles, and for that I would like to apologise. I have seen what has been done to articles such as Allison Cameron and I support the goal. However, I question your tactics. I'm sure you're bored with having the same argument over and over, but every time you tell a sub-community that it needs to change, you do it in a very confrontational way, which doesn't much help matters. You go in and essentially say "I don't care what you think, I'm going to do this anyway." I concur that the end result is worth fighting for, but it would be better if it were reasoned for. mattbuck 00:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

If I'm not confrontational, things just don't work out. It's one out of ten times that the group of users actually tries to improve the articles themselves rather than me having to force them. Otherwise, they feel that they can just "overrule" policies and guidelines with their own numbers. There is no reasoning with that point of view. TTN 02:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I beg to differ. When I merged two divisions of the Misplaced Pages: Manual of Style-something.... articles into the main article, I mentioned that I was sorry if anyone had any issues with it, or if there was any notable information lost. I then said that if anyone wished to argue with me on it, then feel free to do so on my talk page. I am also polite to the users who give "inappropriate appraisal", as I like to call it. For instance, one user, in Spike (from the Land Before Time)'s article, mentioned that it was a great movie. While I agreed with them on that, I mentioned that it is not appropriate to say things like that in a seriously-focused encyclopedia like this one here. I even suggested to them where I would look if I wanted to voice my opinion on such things. It's how the women in my family have handled matters in similar circumstances for generations; I'm only trying to carry this legacy onwards. Wilhelmina Will 21:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that act illigal in Misplaced Pages?

When that robot warned you about the image you uploaded, you removed his comment. You've told me so yourself: Things like deletion debates, or warnings for anything involved with your edits, are illegal in Misplaced Pages. Be careful!!! Wilhelmina Will 21:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

No, users may remove anything that they would like from their own talk pages. The bot message is just a general space-wasting spam message anyways. TTN 21:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Drawn Together

Please desist from redirecting contrary to consensus. It is quite clear that consensus has been established in this discussion, based on reasoned argument. There is no justification for you ignoring the discussion which has taken place, within the normal framework of Misplaced Pages policy. Please also familiarise yourself with WP:OWN. Thanks, DWaterson 23:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your reply. I'm afraid I'm going to ignore all rules in this case, given that there is clear consensus against your preferred result after over a month of discussion. Had this been an AFD and not a merge discussion, we could have avoided this sort of dispute easily through admin closure. However, as both of us have been involved in the discussion, in all good faith I suggest we both withdraw from any further involvement in proposals to merge or redirect these articles in order to avoid the appearance of sour grapes. DWaterson 23:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your further reply. I apologise for my slow response. Firstly, of course, WP:IAR applies in all circumstances where mindless devotion to written instructions is defeating our common objective of building an encyclopadia. Secondly, yes - we can all cite policy willy-nilly. But your continued assertion that policy has been wilfully ignored by contributors to the lengthy discussion - and therefore you can simply disregard clear consensus - simply doesn't wash. Finally, your comment that, "These will be redirected unless you provide the information to please them or we can just place each single article up for deletion, one at a time over a few months" sounds like a provocative threat to disrupt Misplaced Pages to make a point by gaming the system. I hope I have misinterpreted your comment, but "placing each single article up for deletion, one at a time over a few months" would be a most inappropriate method of generating consensus. I hope you choose not to go ahead with your assertion that you will "just go ahead and redirect them when I get the chance", contrary to consensus, as this will no doubt simply end up in an unproductive content dispute/revert war of the kind I have no interest in engaging in. I'm optimistic that you'll see that threatening to redirect contrary to consensus is not a productive way to work with others in order to build the encyclopaedia, but I see from other editors' comments on your talk page that you have rather long form on this sort of behaviour :-/ Cheers, DWaterson 00:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Hi TTN, sure I think that's fine if we can get it to stick. No-one responded to my suggestion for an arb case, so we might as well try again. Let Jack know so we can, as required, keep up a vigil aginst any committed reverters who are drawn from the woodwork. I'll follow it as well of course. Eusebeus 00:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Yo! Per your previous comment, I've started in on the Farscape stuff. Can you keep an eye out? If we are both diligent we may be able to get the point across. How many times do these guys need to be slapped down at AN/I before they'll learn? Eusebeus 18:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Will do. TTN 18:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Since your blankness seems to mean yes...

Wilhelmina Will has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thank you for not removing the episode description paragraphs from the main Iggy Arbuckle page! Wilhelmina Will 01:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

What the hell have you done?

Way to ruin the Drawn Together entry. Now I lose all the fun of the trivia, obscure references and animation cameos that are one of the reasons the show is written and drawn the way that it is in the first place. I thank you for adding to the mangled, Phantom-of-the-Opera-burnt-face reputation that is Misplaced Pages on the Internet. Now if you'll excuse me, Uncyclopedia is calling me on my cell phone and I'm pretty sure it's about making a Drawn Together parody entry. --Iwriteu 05:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Please put whatever you erased back in, or else I'll have to eat this cookie myself. Wilhelmina Will 05:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

TTN did nothing, actually. He proposed a merger; the discussion has not been closed as of yet. Someone attempted to merge the entire episode article into the list, but has since been reverted. TTN you need a large sign akin to Betacommand listing your standard replies. Save lots of time. — Soleil (formerly I) 05:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

In that case...

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I'll give you a total of two cookies if you call off that merging discussion, TTN. Two cookies! How can you turn down an offer like that? Wilhelmina Will 05:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Please stop wiping Billy & Mandy's Big Boogie Adventure

You aren't discussing anything with us at all on the matter and what you're doing looks like and is about as helpful as vandalism. Besides that, the discussion/agreement you say is on the list talk page isn't there. If you want to make any major changes to an article, please talk with people about it beforehand instead of just getting rid of all the content and ignoring/blanking us and having revert wars.

Thanks. *Still Calico 15:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

There was a merge tag back in June or July that lead to this this discussion. TTN 15:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't quite follow. There is nothing there about merging the movie article - just the individual episodes. That's a completely different kettle of fish. *Still Calico 15:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The merge tag was placed in that article, and it was pointed out that all of the articles in the category were going to go. If you want to keep this article, you need to find commentary, reviews, and other things like that from official sources, and apply them to the article. TTN 16:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually no. You need to show that they probably don't exist.Genisock2 14:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Uh, how do you prove that something doesn't exist? You can show that it is unlikely, but someone can always claim that it exists. That is why the burden of proof is on those wanting to keep the articles. TTN 15:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I said probably doesn't exist. In this case a search of google news and a major libiary index (congress or british say) would probably surfice.Geni 16:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Now, why exactly should I be the one to search through for sources for many unrelated articles? It is up to those that would like to see the articles flourish. And in this case, why are you even arguing? These are minor video game characters from games that have a hard time establishing themselves. TTN 18:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

You should be the one because you want to make a major change to them. Generaly not a good idea to do that if you don't know anything about the subject.Geni 20:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

And yes, it would be nice of me to do so, but these articles should not have been created in the first place anyways, and again, it is up to those that want to keep the articles. TTN 18:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

No it is up to you.Geni 20:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

RE:List of Paper Mario series characters

Seeing as nothing has happened with it, will you be fine if the actual article is redirected at this point? We can leave a hidden message to work on it at your sandbox. If it is brought up to our standards, it can come back. TTN 17:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

RE:Yeah, please go ahead and do that. I wasn't able to spend a lot of time finding sources for it right after our discussion and then (honestly) I sort of forgot about it. I was also hoping Czarbender (creator and strong supporter of the article) would have done more to add sources, but only added a few sources to the main characters, which obviously isn't enough. During the little time I did get to play around with the article I realized how all the characters (with the exception of the main characters) really only appear in one of the games. This really negates the reason for a single article containing all the characters - if lots of characters had appeared in multiple games, then it would've been the best option to keep a single list (but that is not the case). Also, I'm sorry for our previous discussions which got a little heated. I hope that is now history and we can work together, if need be, in the future. -Zomic13 19:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Ohmygosh! According to the message in italics, TTN! Is it true that you showed an article some mercy? Oh, that's just wonderful! Wilhelmina Will 19:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

arcane

How do you know that the Jan 6, 2001 independent article doesn't meantion the characters?Geni 20:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. That is why it is up to you to show if that information appears in some random article. The burden of proof is on those that claim something, not those who deny it. TTN 23:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

So you are makeing your edits out of ignorance rather than knowlage? Acticle is hardly radom. Less than a minutes research would have told you that.Geni 23:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, it it up to you or someone wanting to keep the article to provide the real world information. That is all. You can either prove me wrong or wait until someone else does. TTN 23:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Actualy no it is up to you as the one who wants to make a major edit. BOLD, revert, discuss cycle but that rather assumes you are makeing your bold move based on knowlage rather than ignorance.Geni 00:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

From WP:V: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." That is it. TTN 00:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Did you move it to the talk page? did youuse the "{{fact}} template, the section with {{Unreferencedsection}} or if the entire article is unsourced by adding {{refimprove}} or {{unreferenced}}"?Geni 00:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

We have different procedures with fictional topics; they do not generally improve. If the topic does not assert itself per WP:FICT and WP:WAF, it is merged or redirected. If this were a series of games that are likely to improve with work, then just adding tags and cutting information would be the proper procedure. Just drop it unless you can show that these articles have the potential to become more than the usual crap. TTN 00:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

We? Which "we" would this be?Geni 00:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not getting into this with you. This is the point where you start to assert that your personal, by-the-book way of doing things is the only method. Drop it until you see that I am actually redirecting articles that exist in the real world without giving them as much as a glance. TTN 00:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

So you reject by the book and instead follow something produced by some mysterious "we"?Geni 00:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

If I may put my two-bits in, TTN, this conversation makes you sound mighty suspicious. User:Geni, I don't think you want to deal with this guy anymore. Sounds to me like he's doin' somethin' illegal. Wilhelmina Will 01:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)