Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TragedyStriker (talk | contribs) at 22:59, 11 June 2008. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Welcome!

Hello, Jclemens, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  RJFJR 21:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Serenity film edits

I have some problems with your edit here. To begin with, at no point in Staite's blog (I thought we tend to avoid those) does she refer to Serenity as the Big Damn Movie. Her reference to BDM is without explanation and seems almost a non-connection of synthesis (ie, knowing that fans call it the BDM and connecting that info with Staite's ambiguous usage of the term) doesn't seem like a clear one. The second source, from Session416.com, seems to be a fan site (I am almost positive that we don't use those at all for citable information). The third source you cited (from Weeklystandard.com) doesn't even mention the words BDM or Big Damn Movie. At all. So, here we have three sources, two of which are the poorest of allowable sources and the third doesn't even note the material supposedly being cited. It cannot remain. - Arcayne () 07:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure it can remain. That's just a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, however. To address the points in question...

1. I didn't add or modify the Weekly Standard reference, I just restored what was there before without looking at it.
2. Staite's Blog is authoritative for what Staite says, per WP:SPS. Granted that she doesn't explain what BDM means. Reading it in context of the other blog posts, however, makes it clear that that's what she's referring to.
3. The Session416 site is a reaction to and later explanation of the "viral marketing" campaign for Serenity. I'm guessing it was authored by one or more fans, but like The Lurker's Guide to Babylon 5 is a respected, documented, essentially static resource within the limited context of its expertise.

Other possible sources that support that usage are a number of acronym lists, a reader reply to a newspaper-sponsored blog (in sfgate.com), a bunch of posts to whedonesque.com, and thousands of other blogs that Google can find. There's no question that that usage is verifiable, really. The question rather is what and how many sources are sufficient to document it, without filling the reference list with tangentially relevant stuff.

Personally, I think the simple solution is to follow the spirit of WP:SPS--fan sites should be RS for what fans say--and the use of BDM as shorthand is well documented in those contexts. Your thoughts? Jclemens (talk) 20:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for responding so quickly. :)

I wasn't kicking you for adding links, only for the edit that added them in the first place. Apparently, we are agreed that the Weekly Standard reference is out, as it doesn't point to the usage implied by the statement. I still have reservations about the Staite reference, as using it implies a bit of synthesis that could easily become a slippery slope; I would feel much better with a reference from Whedon or someone putting BDM, Big Damn Movie and the allusion in one place. the article would certainly be stronger for it. Lastly, fansites as SPS are fairly poor examples for use. True the site is indeed purty, but its essentially unqualified non-RS info being imparted as official. The B5 Lurker's Guide is different in that is backs up everything it says with confirmation from Straczynski or someone else associated with the program. Staite is the talent, not the production, and her comments are rather outside of her purview. Again, finding something more slid only strengthens the article. Thoughts? - Arcayne () 21:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I was just looking through my copies of The Serenity Visual Companion and Finding Serenity, but I didn't find a reference to BDM in any of those. I don't have the second volume of essays, but the first was published before the movie was released--the latter would be much more likely to have it. Also, there's no question that the fan film, Done the Impossible will have references in it, but it, too, has the Fan film stigma, even if it is released for general sale. It really shouldn't be this much work to document the widespread fan usage--it seems the sourcing threshold should be lower for uncontested facts.

I understand the need to put BDM, Big Damn Movie, and Serenity in one place. I disagree that it needs to be Whedon saying it--the original assertion was that the fans used it regularly to refer to the movie--thus it's more of a reaction to the movie than authorial intent. What about using fan links like FireFlyFans, Whedonesque or UK Browncoats Forum in the specific context of documenting what fans call Serenity?

Also, I have no problem with moving the 'BDM' reference out of the lead section. I just put it back there because that's where it was. Jclemens (talk) 22:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, I didn't mean to imply that Whedon was the only dude we could cite, J. I was thinking that someone on the production (or even marketing side) of the series/film would be better to cite than the talent. As for noting it because the fans started to could be cited, if we can find a news source (or something similar) that notes the phenomena of BDM might be a way out of the problem. I think something similar was done with both the Star Trek and Star Wars stuff, both of whom have sizable fan followings and idiosyncrasies. - Arcayne () 22:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help

Thanks! --213.40.96.218 (talk) 04:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I second that! I had no idea it was possible to vandalize Misplaced Pages. I thought it was just a popularity contest. I have much more respect for this site now! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.205.249.86 (talk) 02:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add that 100% of what I said was true. Just google it. I will come back one day when the history books are written so I can source my assertions.

If it's true, then feel free to add citations to reliable sources. The standard of Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth. Jclemens (talk) 03:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Stephen Decatur

75.93.35.75 (talk) 06:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)Darren75.93.35.75 (talk) 06:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC) im the one editing the steven decatur page. if you look at the link provided you will see that in the jersey devil page the 1st encounter was steven decatur. is this site not a viable source???? and sorry if im not doing this right

Hi Darren. Can you include citations from reliable sources to document what you've added? It's sometimes hard to tell the difference between real material and nonsense that vandals add. Jclemens (talk) 06:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

i tried to add them but i guess i dont know how. it appears wrong in the article. if you look up jersey devil a steven decatur you will see everything that it brings up all tell of the same enncounter. i believe it should be here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.93.35.75 (talk) 06:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Whoops--my bad. The instructions are at WP:CITE, not . Jclemens (talk) 06:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

ok i got it now. thanks. learn something new everyday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.93.35.75 (talk) 06:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The Feather Cave (novel)

Hi, the G3 tag you put on this is perfectly appropriate. I sometimes feel reluctant myself to put a speedy tag on an old article, hence the AFD suggestion. Lately I've been changing speedy tags around if the wrong one has been picked, because I think it can be confusing for newbies enough without being given the wrong reason that their article is up for deletion. Cheers Kevin (talk) 10:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! So, no special handling (besides speedy) for articles that claim to have been long-term efforts to undermine Misplaced Pages's credibility? Jclemens (talk) 17:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It's been undermining our credibility for a year already. A few days probably makes no difference. Kevin (talk) 21:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Okeydoke. Thanks for the clarification. Jclemens (talk) 23:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Slam Stewart

You have reverted my edit to make Slam Stewart an American musician, rather than an African American musician. If for instance Charlie Parker, Duke Ellington, Benny Goodman and Chick Corea are American musicians, what makes Slam Stewart special to deserve the special mention of ethnicity in the introduction? (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

While doing recent changes patrolling, which is what I was doing when I reverted you, I'm looking for vandalism. Changing racial or sexual orientation categories without a citation, even in the absence of "bad words" is always suspect. Likewise, removing or changing specific claims that have existed in an article is more suspect than adding new facts that don't contradict existing contributions. In your case, you're a new user, which raises the level of suspicion as well. On the basis of those three items, I reverted your edit. Thank you for approaching me in a polite manner to assert that your edit was in good faith. The problem with the examples of the other musicians you list is that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS--since Misplaced Pages is created by thousands of volunteers, differences in interpretation of guidelines, levels of effort, and such almost guarantee that quality and consistency will vary from article to article within a specific domain. Wikiprojects exist to attempt to balance efforts. If you want to make this edit again, adding an appropriate edit summary such as "change to be consistent with B.Goodman and D.Ellington" that demonstrates a rationale for your change should reduce the chance of another editor reverting you. I will not revert you if you make that change again, given the explanation you've given here. Thanks! Jclemens (talk) 03:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for keeping Pau Gasol vandalism free!

You deserved it. I know how tedious things like that can be. I make it a point to award people for their hard work in keeping the article I built up to a GA status vandalism free. It's most likely because of the NBA Finals that Gasol is getting vandalism from IPs, I've requested a Semi-Protection lock until a couple days after the NBA Finals are over in hopes that vandalism will cool off by then. Thanks again! Gamloverks (talk) 04:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

SB

Thanks. There's a limit to the amount of stuff in the cleanup tag it can deal with. Rich Farmbrough, 22:18 11 June 2008 (GMT).

I have now fixed the fixed version... Rich Farmbrough, 22:21 11 June 2008 (GMT).

I'd be interested to know where you got the original syntax. Rich Farmbrough, 22:24 11 June 2008 (GMT).

Hmm... I have no idea. I'm guessing I must have subst:'ed what you put, because I don't remember cut-and-pasting anything that elaborate. Jclemens (talk) 22:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Zachary Jaydon

There seems to be confusion as to the relation between Jaydon D. Paull & Zachary Jaydon. They are one in the same. A large percentage of performers/artists don't go by their legal name. Any notability no matter which of the two names they are credited under are still assertions of nobility under either or both. Many people are eliminating anything that can be user uploaded or changed. I agree with the principle of this in general, however, videos, magazine scans and the such are irrefutable proof of events or facts no matter where they came from. If there is a video of Mr. Jaydon playing with a National Rock Band, you can't say that because it was put up by a "user" that the fact doesn't remain.

While every sentence of this Wiki Article isn't strongly sourced, it doesn't mean he doesn't meat notability requirements for an article. I have scanned and uploaded quite a few of my sources at: http://zacharyjaydonwiki.blogspot.com/

Also, the following was taken directly from WP:N#MUSIC:

Criteria for composers and lyricists

For composers, songwriters, librettists or lyricists:

  1. Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition.

Jaydon has written material on several Multi-Platinum records, including *NSYNC, Craig David, Ryan Cabrera and others. These WERE songs that were included on these albums. They weren't scrapped, or obscure B-Sides. These were songs included on official releases by MAJOR artists. He obviously has notable talent if these artists are choosing to work with him. This is obviously an arguable issue, but given the success of the albums his work has been featured on, it seems at the VERY least, notable. These credits are easily verifiable here:

(, , )

The 3 above sources are all from www.ASCAP.com which is one of the most trusted sources used on Wiki for Songwriter Credit Verification.

() also shows from a VERY large, Fortune 500 companies website with information on Close To Home and confirming Mr. Jaydon's Songwriting Credits. This website would be considered reliable on any front, and also independent of the subject himself.

Skyler Morgan (talk) 22:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)