Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:28, 18 January 2008

Welcome to my talk page. Please adhere to the talk page guidelines and particularly the following: Please post your new topic at the bottom of this page. Please sign and date your entry by inserting "~~~~" at the end. Please specify a descriptive subject or headline for a new topic and separate subtopics by ===heading=== lines, if needed. Please indent your posts with one more ":" than what you are replying to, i.e. begin with ":" if replying to an existing topic and "::" if replying to a reply. I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your Talk page (or the article Talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want to watch this page until you are responded to, or specifically let me know where you'd prefer the reply. ⇒ Start a new Talk topic.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11

This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

I prefer to reply to comments on the page they were left, so if I left a comment on your page, reply there it is on my watch list. If you leave a comment here, watch this page until the discussion is done as I will only leave replies here. Comments which I find to be uncivil, full of vulgarities, an attempt flame baiting, or that are are excessively rude may be deleted without response. If I choose not to answer, that's my right, don't keep putting it back. I'll just delete and get annoyed at you. I'm something of a neat freak, so I regularly archive items from my talk page when the discussion is resolved or closed, hence the archive box over there. ->>

Are you hear about an edit I made? You may want to check my user page first to get some general info on some common questions about edits I make. Here are some quick links as well:

• Explain the assessment you made on this TV or film article
• Why did you give X article Y tag(s)?

Bubba Gump Shrimp Company

The better place for multiple images is probably in wikimedia commons. Any idea how I can refer to a picture that's free but isn't in the commons yet? Baseball Bugs 20:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you can until it is uploaded to the commons. Then, you'd refer to it the same way, like the Times Square one. Misplaced Pages:Wikimedia Commons has a section on how to move an image from Misplaced Pages to the commons. I've added a link to the Bubba Gump Shrimp page at the Commons to the article. Collectonian (talk) 20:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I see that. I thought I had seen a way to add from the wikipedia images, but I can't find it just now. However, this might encourage whoever reviews wikimedia stuff to move those two items to commons. Baseball Bugs 20:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

And just so we're clear on this, I have no financial interest in the company whatsoever. It's just a restaurant that I like. Baseball Bugs 20:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand, and it is a very nice photo, its just the article is so tiny right now it doesn't need so many images. Check out Misplaced Pages:Moving images to the Commons for the step by step on how to move an image from here to the Commons. Collectonian (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I uploaded it to commons, so it's in that image gallery now. The other one, in California, that guy will have to do for himself, if he wants to. Of course, it's already in the article, so it may not matter. One other question: The other two photos in that gallery show the faces of random people who just happened to be in the picture. I try to avoid that kind of thing for the sake of privacy (the image I uploaded is too small to identify anyone). Does wikipedia have any rules or guidelines on that situation? Baseball Bugs 22:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe the policy follows with US law. If its a public place, like this, people have no expectation of privacy and images with them in it can be used so long as they do not distract from the main subject. :) Collectonian (talk) 23:10, 16 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) 17:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Those sound good to me. :) Collectonian (talk) 17:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Expedition Robinson

Survivor and Expedition Robinson is the same thing, despite the fact they have different names. For example, Let's Dance is the Swedish version of Dancing with the Stars. Strix is a Swedish television company that was founded in the 80's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.116.72.47 (talk) 20:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

If Survivor is the same thing as Expedition Robinson, they wouldn't have separate articles. One show being inspired to copy another's format does not make them the same. Collectonian (talk) 20:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:SOAPS

Hi, I'm commenting a bit late on this archived conversation you had regarding WP:SOAPS; IrishLass had mentioned it and it got lost in my Talk page. In any case, I feel like I have to clarify something regarding your perception of the Project. We are well aware that it is a descendant Project of TV, but it certainly allows us to focus efforts on improving the articles in this genre which previously were lost in the thousands of TV pages. The fact that you notified the TV Project about the article IrishLass mentioned and no one got involved sort of proves my point that the general membership of TV isn't concerned with the genre. And I don't think you can call it a "vanity project" any more than the TV project itself. — TAnthony 01:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• shrug* I disagree. I think SOAPS should be a workgroup under television (are there any non-television soap operas? Genres don't need separate projects anymore than individual shows and after seeing what the SOAPs project calls improvement, it seems to have no disregard for its "parent project" or existing Misplaced Pages guidelines and policies, filling the encyclopedia with literally thousands upon thousands of articles on episodes and characters that never should have been created. Few to none peet WP:EPISODE, WP:FICTION, or WP:N. If there were a system in placed, I'd recommend the project be forced back down to a work group so it can fully be under the TV project for better oversight. As for notification, that isn't my job. I "notified" TV by including it in the deletion sorting because I'm in the Television project. I do the same for any other TV article I AfD or find while browsing the AfDs. I do the same for few other projects I'm a member of. I do not del sort for other projects. Those projects should have people watching the AfDs same as we do. And since any SOAPS AfD would also be in the Television AfD, it probably be even easier just to watch the TV ones. But that's up to y'all since you want to be a standalone project. Collectonian (talk) 01:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I actually agree with some of your points; many people who edit soap-related articles regularly are merely adding miniscule plot details, listing distant relatives and creating articles for soap opera infants — but the bulk of those are IP editors who aren't even part of the Project. We are relatively small and just gaining momentum again, but we do have overall goals that include making soap articles fully compliant with the usual TV and fiction policies. We've begun actively merging and cutting articles and changing tense in an initial "cleanup" phase, and have been slowly identifying articles and implementing the necessary references and real-world context with notability in mind. The first standout achievement of the Project is Pauline Fowler, the first soap article to achieve Featured status. We generally get what needs to be fixed, it's just a daunting task.

This Project was definitely created before my time and I imagine before the concept of task forces was widely known, and I could see it morphing into one in the future. But I feel like you may be thinking this upstart, specific little Project came along and "stole" a bunch of TV articles. In fact, when I came along in May 2007 and added the Project to WP 1.0, it had about 300 articles, hardly any of which had a WP:TV banner. I spent many hours scouring through categories and such tagging articles for the Project — I think we're up to like 2900 right now — and few of them had any WP banners at all, let alone a WP:TV one. A number of these articles probably have no right to exist, but many were actual series, and WP:TV had not adopted them yet. Step one in cleaning house is seeing what you've got and organizing, right? Your point about oversight aside, I don't think WP:TV needs the burden at this point. — TAnthony 03:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Depression article

On the question of how I redirected the depression article, you said this caused some kind of GFDL problem. What kind of problem does it cause? just like to know more.

Sardaka (talk) 12:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

By Misplaced Pages policy and the GFDL, content from one article used in another must retain the credits to the original authors. The proper way to rename a page would have been to move it. Instead, you copy and pasted the article to a new name, which means the new article has none of the history of the existing article, and thus the credits. It also meant the new article had none of the talk page history of the old, which could be seen as a way of refactoring comments. If/when consensus is reached on a more appropriate name, it should be done properly to ensure all history and content are retained. Collectonian (talk) 12:56, 18 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)