Misplaced Pages

AfD nomination of Mary Burns (US Civil War soldier)

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 Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mary Burns (US Civil War soldier) 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) 16:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Not me! this was a cleanup on my part. notify the real editors; history on Mary Burns. --Lquilter (talk) 03:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

FI

Perhaps you could rejoin the discussion on Fanny Imlay and the naming nightmare? Thanks. Awadewit | talk 20:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Keeping an eye on it. --Lquilter (talk) 03:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

re Renaming of Intellectual impairment category

Thanks for your support :-) I was surprised to see the renaming go that way? I hope it gets relisted and hopefully gets the nod for "People" first format. If you see it relisted could you let me know please? Knowing me I'll probably miss it. Cheers, Sting_au Talk 03:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Knowledge discovery in databases

Hello, I came across a CfD nomination you'd added to Category:Knowledge discovery in databases. It doesn't seem to have been listed on the CfD log ... could you list it or can I just remove the tag? Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Forget that, seems it has been relisted. Doh! Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Weird - the link was wrong. I've fixed it. --Lquilter (talk) 07:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Leap tall buildings in a single bound!

Well, maybe not. But can I interest you in the new Misplaced Pages:Rollback feature? An unlimited time offer means that this awesome power can be yours for just 0,00 Swiss Francs. If you're tempted, leave me a note on my talk page and I'll flip the switch. If you know of anyone else who would benefit from rollback, you can can ask them to contact me and I'll be happy to help, Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I've enabled it now. All the best for 2008, Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2007_December_31#Category:Types of organization

Sorry I was unable to reply to you before the CfD was closed. It was an interesting discussion with plenty of participants, and I hope it continues somewhere, but Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Organizations/Taskforce-Categorization seems to have only two participants, and Category_talk:Organizations seems completely moribund. Any pointers to new active discussions? Thanks, - Neparis (talk) 05:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• Various people post on the WP Organizations, but I think categories are too esoteric for most folks. <g> A few new people have been expressing interest -- you, VegasWikian is looking into it, I've been talking with some others, too. So, I think if you just go ahead and post on Category talk:Organizations. --Lquilter (talk) 12:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment on Category Redirect template

Because you are a member of WikiProject Categories, your input is invited on some proposed changes to the design of the {{Category redirect}} template. Please feel free to view the proposals and comment on the template talk page. --Russ (talk) 21:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Mediation case about the proposed merger of Firefly characters

Since no agreement could be reached through discussion about the proposed merger of Firefly characters, a mediation case was started in which you were listed as party. If you wish to comment, please see Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-09 List of characters in the Firefly universe. – sgeureka 15:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Christian companies

Hi, please would you clarify your last suggestion on this at CFD? - Fayenatic (talk) 14:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Feminism

I'm leaving notes for those of you interested in a Feminism project/portal. There's a discussion at WT:GS#Portal proposal over some ideas. Thanks. Phyesalis (talk) 23:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

CfD

E. H. Harriman Award winners I actually only migrated this from "E.H. Harriman Award winners," so I have no investment in the outcome, but thanks for the note. You may want to figure out who made that category and post on his talk, though. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:08, 15 January 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 . --Maniwar (talk) 21:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Activist & organization categories

Hi Lquilter: Just want to let you know that I've been putting a good deal of thought into this and related issues since reading your note. I'm working on articulating a cogent response, rather than just an off-the-cuff comment, so please bear with me. :) Cgingold (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yikes, we just "crossed in the mail", so to speak! Cgingold (talk) 23:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Objective Episode Standard

I saw your support for my statement. I would like to propose this as an objective standard:

Notable episodes are those that meet any of the following criteria:

1. has been nominated for individual awards by a notable organization;
2. have had elements of the episode nominated for such an award (i.e. "best supporting actor" for a guest-starring role);
3. reached an unusual peak of ratings (such as the finale of M*A*S*H);
4. achieved other notoriety due to an unusual impact on the real world(the "seizure-causing" episode of Pokemon; the Trapped in the Closet episode of South Park, etc.)

Can you think of any specific additional criteria?Kww (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

We're totally thinking along similar lines. I started gathering these up at User:Lquilter/Episodes Guide. I like your formulation for the most part. I would either add to, or tweak number 4. "Notoriety" implies a certain amount of public attention which is good; I would like to also talk about critical attention somewhere in there. (as in, criticism and reviews, not as in, "I hate it because it sux"). If your #4 is aimed more at "unusual impact" like seizures, I think critical inquiry or review would be a separate point.

For another good example of #4, I'd add the Murphy Brown episode in which she announced she was having a baby, and the one that responded directly to Dan Quayle's attacks on the show. Although, it's not limited to one episode, exactly, so this might be a good example of a how an arc or series of episodes could become tied in with an incident. In general, episodes which were censored -- like Ellen Degeneres' coming out episode -- would be a great example.

And can I just say my frustration with all the people who don't want standards, want WP to be an episode guide ... what is it with this childish attack language ("you're just a deletionist!" i can almost hear them stomping their feet, mentally). i'm a *FAN* too, ferchrissakes. I have been so appreciative of rationality on these discussions. --Lquilter (talk) 17:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable with a critical attention standard. How would you phrase it so that it would require an unusual amount? Shows with big cult bases tend to get multiple reviews for every episode, and nearly every piece of anime produced gets some kind of review in Newtype or Animage.Kww (talk) 17:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I mean, basically I'm talking about academic work. Any commercial failure might turn out to have gotten great critical reception or be really influential on future creators. ... There is definitely a systemic bias issue in that any pop culture topic has gajillions of magazines that churn out lots of reviews. (And sometimes the reviews aren't even really on point -- for instance, some of what we've been seeing passed off as "references" are actually DVD reviews, rather than reviews of the work, per se.) Unfortunately, I'm not sure how to distinguish between trade publication & fan publication reviews on the one hand, and mainstream press and scholarly literature on the other. WP:RS would have been helpful here, but, alas, that doesn't seem to be going anywhere. --Lquilter (talk) 17:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-13 24 character merging of minor characters

Please see the open discussion regarding the 24 mergers.--Lucy-marie (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Central discussion of objective criteria

Your feedback is welcome at Proposed Objective Criteria for TV Episode Notability.Kww (talk) 19:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)