![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 20 |
Hello! With this edit, you stated in your summary that "evolution is not a theory." I realize that opponents of the concept often state that it's "just a theory", but a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment." So while I see nothing wrong with the wording to which you reverted, "theory of evolution" is a correct description. — David Levy 06:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Please, please, please tell me there's a special place in hell for IP editors who don't bother to learn even the most fundamental practices around here. (Beating head against wall.) We've got a doozie editing on two IP's resolving to the same suburban town in New Joisey, and edit warring merrily. You've dealt with them too, over article splits. -- Drmargi ( talk) 13:21, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Hey :) I'm doing a bit of an odd project - collecting municipal border signs/monuments and street signs for Commons. Looking around on Street View I can see there's border signs for Port Stephens on the Pacific Highway at Tomago, and on Nelson Bay Road just south of Fern Bay, while the local signs appear to vary (probably in age) between black writing on white signs, and white writing on smaller black signs (see e.g. [1]). Would it be possible to get photos of any of these for Commons? I have got Newcastle and Lake Macquarie sign exemplars on a previous visit, and intend to get the Central Coast ones later in the year if I can't find someone else to get those (strangely I've only found one Lake Macquarie border sign - on the south side - and no Newcastle ones on Street View.) Orderinchaos 09:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Please do not get rid of Up All Night (season 1) and redirect it to List of Up All Night episodes. Yes, I know what WP:SIZERULE is, but due to hard work and effort for it, the article deserves to be there. 68.44.51.49 ( talk) 11:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Hey there. I've reverted a few of your changes on List of Ringer episodes. Firstly, I re-added the title card (I forgot to add the non-free rationale to it, but have done so now). Also, just because it is a "list of episodes", does not mean it can not include additional information. I was following what List of Awake episodes had going (a FL nomination), as I plan on also cleaning up the article and nominating it for FL. A little bit of info on how the series was received, and how fans tried to save it from being cancelled adds to it, don't you think? If you disagree, surely we can work on an agreement together on whether or not such should be included, and what should be done in its place (because clearly the lead needs to be expanded upon further). Thank you, Statυs ( talk) 20:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Aussie, a small head scratcher. I notice you're changing out the Food Network Star infobox template. There's a small terminology issue: it lists how many chefs are in the competition. FNS competitors are not generally chefs. These are home cooks, a handful of whom have some professional training, but they're not chefs and FN is very specific about that. Is there some way to change chefs to competitors in the infobox? As "hairsplitty" as this may sound, we are writing an encyclopedia. -- Drmargi ( talk) 17:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Food Network Star (season 7) | |
---|---|
Season 13 |
{{Infobox television season}}
directly and the templates have since been deleted. Another 21 articles, including the Food Network Star articles, used {{Infobox television Top Chef}}
, which uses "Chef". I created a fork of {{Infobox television season}}
that used the same terminology and changed all 21 articles to use that. {{Infobox television Top Chef}}
has been deleted as well. The changes that I'm making at the moment are geared towards bypassing the fork altogether. The good news for you is that this enables us to make the heading whatever you want it to be. It's simply a matter of changing the data for cust_label_2
to whatever you want. --
AussieLegend (
talk)
17:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)No. Season 7 is showing in Russia now. Ed didn't called the best in episode 1, as well as Jay in ep. 5 and Ben in ep. 6. I've seen everything. Look at this series and make sure yourself. KIRILL95 ( talk) 17:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
It looks like you just reverted all the work that I did. Here's my response to your explanations:
Please ensure that edit summaries are accurate. This recent summary includes implications that are clearly incorrect. As I demonstrated to you on my talk page, these articles were de-linked almost 6 months ago, [6] which is also about 6 months before the AfDs and therefore very obviously not because of the AfDs. -- AussieLegend ( talk) 10:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
G'day Aussie Legend, I have been working hard on updating the references and I trust that they are, in the main, up to the standards expected for Wikipedia. Thank you for your feedback and input. Sorry that I have been a slow learner and frustrating for you. I have been able to learn from your links and advice. I am asking if now that the page is up to standard that it is appropriate that the warnings can now be removed. Thanks for your support in making this page look great. Ben Benwebboz ( talk) 07:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Since (book 2) has a discussion for it to be deleted (per the sake of it being a future season and all) do you think it would be wise to open a request for deleteion of (Book 1) as well? You, me, geraldo and I saw another editor who have agreed that the split was done prematurely (and without discussion). I would think a requestion for deletion is important as Sandstein thinks the information is duplicated on both the episode list and (Book 1) so he/she wants to redirect it to (Book 1)#episodes and not have a list of episodes page. I made this saying we shouldn't have (Book 1) then we wouldn't run into the problem of "duplication". We should wait until all 26 Season 1 episodes have aired and season 2 book 3 has some info before we create separate articles. We also have the fact that there really isn't a lot of info on the (Book 1) page anyway (most of it is taken from the main article and even links to the main article). I'm just not sure how to go about creating this discussion of deleting the page. - Alec ( talk) 17:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Am I wrong about this? I've had discussions before about Splitting up "List of episode" pages before and they've always ened up saying "It's too early to split." However A user
Sandstein has created a Season page already and linked the "List of episode" pages to the "Episodes" section of (Book 1) of the Legend of Korra so a "list of episodes" does not really have a page. They think there's enough info on the (Book 1) page to keep it but the "List of episodes" page was fine before and it's too early for it to be split. They also said that once we get (Book 2) we can re-create the list of episodes page where it tranluces (spelling?) from the season page to the list of episodes page where all you see is the episodes. Main discussion
here but there's more
here. -
Alec (
talk)
16:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Everytime I had a suggestion to split, the answer was that "it's too early" and in the case, it is. Just look at "Suits", "White Collar," "Good Luck Charlie," etc pages and they are not split as of yet. -
Alec (
talk)
16:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Viewers
parameter, but retained the Aux4
parameter. Generally, the ratings tables substantially duplicate what is in the episode tables. There are options, depending on how many columns are used. For example, the following works with Rizzoli & Isles season 1:No. in series |
No. in season |
Title | Directed by | Written by | Original air date | U.S. viewers (in millions) |
18-49 (rating/share) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 1 | "See One. Do One. Teach One" | Michael M. Robin | Janet Tamaro | July 12, 2010 | 7.55 | 2.1 | |
Episode summary |
Aux1
, Aux2
, Aux3
and Aux4
parameters.EpisodeNumber | EpisodeNumber2 | "Title"RTitle "AltTitle"RAltTitle |
Aux1 | DirectedBy | WrittenBy | Aux2 | Aux3 | OriginalAirDate | AltDate | ProdCode | Viewers | Aux4 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ShortSummary |
Alec, of course you're welcome to respond! Aussie and I have these little chats now and then. I just reverted the R&I table. Here's the thing with those: aside from the excessive space the take in an article, how much do we really need to document episode-to-episode that can't be found by following the link back to the source? The average reader can't tell you what a rating and a share means. Or what they key demo is all about. That level of detail drifts into fancruft, and certainly indiscriminate information. Viewership figures for each episode and a link to the details for the episode, then a summary of the seasonal ratings, which ultimately govern renewal decisions, are what we need. No more. Someone is adding elaborate ratings tables to the Top Chef articles as well. Why on earth would anyone care, especially after the fact. Time to go, to my way of thinking. -- Drmargi ( talk) 18:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
We're off again! What IS IT about the carved up season article that's so appealing? I haven't got a clue. He's taken it to dispute resolution, but it doesn't appear to be set up properly (not sure; never been there before.) -- Drmargi ( talk) 08:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
DRN is closed as having been filed to early. I was glad to see that. Alec, are you asking me to comment on Legend of Korra? I'll have to familiarize myself first. -- Drmargi ( talk) 00:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
May I ask why you deleted an entire article regarding Helena G. Wells that was JUST published tonight? I can understand the argument that her not being a regular is why you wouldn't want to have her listed as a main one in the character list page, but to delete the entire article itself without even approaching the author (me) about it before you did so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Electprogeny ( talk • contribs) 08:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
The reversion you just did was to go back to a mass deletion of arbitrary data removal. When I asked the person in question, whose user talk page reflects a rather interesting history of spurious deletions, the response I got was that it was to rewrite the article so it was not "in-universe" per the tag suggestion at the top of the page. It may very well have been done in good faith, but the deletions merely removed arbitrary sections of data without any rewrites and the deleted data (and references that had been verified by IShadowed) did not - in fact, have any affect whatsoever on the "in-universe" nature of the article that garnered the tag. I spent the better part of the day working with various wiki-helpers to rewrite the entirety of the article for this very purpose. I am currently waiting for a wiki-helper to review the changes that were made for the purpose of removing that tag - which I could have done on my own, but I am - in good faith - trying not to take any action without consensus from the more knowledgeable wiki-helpers.
If you are saying you believe the person made a good faith deletion of over 7,000 words from random areas of the article in 3 different edits in rapid succession - I have no issue with that, but I have watched you revert good faith edits so am unclear as to why you are reverting the change I just made (with the help of a wiki-helper who told me exactly what to do to get to the original state before the deletions). In this particular case, considering the level of effort to improve the article per all the guidelines, I'd like to understand what your take is on whether or not the deletions in question actually made the article less "in-universe" than it already was at the time of the initial deletions. Thank you. Electprogeny ( talk) 03:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
What you mean, I put a source and explained? MichelleTheola ( talk) 14:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Wanted to give you a courtesy note that I reverted despite a good faith assumption since I didn't see anything in the edits actually effecting the in universe question. ( Mynameisme91 ( talk) 03:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC))
( talk page stalker) Awfully well informed, and focused, for an editor with a handful of edits. I smell socks and hear ducks quacking. Any theories? -- Drmargi ( talk) 07:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Help! I made a complete mess of a move and now I can't get it to go where I want it. Want to be a pal and either clean up after me or tell me what to do? An editor made a series of moves of old seasons of The Next Food Network Star to its newer title, Food Network Star against consensus. I thought I was moving them back, and instead moved them to The Food Network Star (DUH!) Now I can't get them back to their original title. What'd I do, and how do I fix? I made a COLOSSAL mess! -- Drmargi ( talk) 01:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC) (ETA: I also left a message on the talk page of the admin who closed the case originally. I can't believe what I did!!)
Hey. In honour of Australia at the 2012 Summer Paralympics, I'm trying to get articles created about members of the team who don't have articles yet. This is a fairly big job and I could use a bit of assistance. If you have time, can you add information and sources to articles, add pictures to articles (Flickr? Commons?), fix prose on articles where sources have been included now (mostly men's athletics) and otherwise help prep them for DYK? I'd be happy to give you credit at DYK for all the articles you help improve. Thanks in advance. -- LauraHale ( talk) 05:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I've upgraded this site. I've taken an example from NCIS. How do you like it and do you have any other suggestions? Thanks -- LAW CSI ( talk) 19:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Any chance that all the West Wing episode noms could be combined into a single group nom? I think we're seeing mostly copy/pasted comments anyway. Just thread by time stamp, and if someone has a not-quite-the-same comment, just thread it directly below their first timestamped comment. - jc37 19:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I see you've been involved in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television. I have begun a discussion on spoilers in episode lists and would appreciate your input. -- ke4roh ( talk) 02:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I smell socks: two of the accounts were created within the last 2 hours, and went right to the vandalism; also, when I blocked one, the other stopped editing, as if an autoblocker was triggered. -- Rs chen 7754 06:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I do not appreciate that you are going over my edits when adding the spoken wikipedia note to a couple of pages I am passionate about and have done recordings for. You have gone through my edits and done this, and I don't like that. Please don't do it again. TheJoshy ( talk) 07:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Alright mate, listen up! I don't know what it is you've got against Holden. Unless your a Fraud fan... TollHRT52 ( talk) 19:32, 10 August 2012 (AEST)
Was reading over your commants about the odd US copyright laws the rest of us are forced to follow. In Canada we created Wikimedia Canada you guys have anything like this? Trying to get this to help us with copyright. Moxy ( talk) 19:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
They never learn. -- Drmargi ( talk) 23:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Hey, Yeah that isn't me. Cheers, TheJosh ( talk) 02:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the help cleaning up my edit at http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Sea_Shepherd_Conservation_Society&diff=507882149&oldid=507879825
Do you think it would be better to put it back to the plural of lawyers, since it is on letter head with both lawyers information, or leave it singular, as only one signed it? El Heuro ( talk) 20:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. TRLIJC19 ( talk • contribs) 06:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
good work |
Keep up the good wikipedia work bro ImHerelol ( talk) 10:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC) |
Hi Aussie, could you replace the templates of all cycles (seasons) of America's Next Top Model and there will be replace templates: Infobox television to Infobox television season.
Here's the sample of Cycle 1 of America's Next Top Model will look like:
America's Next Top Model, Cycle 1 | |
---|---|
Season 13 | |
No. of episodes | 9 |
Release | |
Original network | UPN |
Original release | May 20 July 15, 2003 | –
Season chronology | |
This template will apply in all cycles of America's Next Top Model and other Top Model franchises (with cycle articles). ApprenticeFan work 12:28, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Nice catch on this sockpuppet, I'm glad that it was resolved quickly. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 01:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Aussie, in addition on replacing the wrong {{infobox television}} and replace with the correct {{infobox television season}}.
The articles to be following for replacing the correct templates for order since you contributed for America's Next Top Model:
Could we please discuss this on the Warehouse 13 page. I have sources for everything I added - I'm just not sure how to put them in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfmclean ( talk • contribs) 07:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Could you resize this photo to lower than 300 dimension on using per WP:NFCC? ApprenticeFan work 14:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
In the Sydney article we can not change anything without your consent (and Bridge). When doing a new edition or when I revert your edition - always my (and other users) versions is reverted and you tell me - that I created a discussion. When you also will discuss first?
Please willingness to cooperate and compromise. OK? Temperate climate in Sydney according to many users is absurd, been and will be a lot of discussion on this topic. I suggested a compromise "temperate subtropical". What do you think? Subtropical-man ( talk) 15:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
There is a dispute about the number of episodes that have aired in the ending show Victorious at talk:List of Victorious episodes#Number of episodes in the series basically related to whether or not long special episodes should be counted as a single episode or as multiple episodes for the purpose of the episode list. Any comments you would choose to make there would be welcome because of your knowledge of the issues, involvement in TV series articles and comments you have made at template talk:Episode list. This may also be a wider issue with other TV series articles. Geraldo Perez ( talk) 16:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
There is a proposal currently at Talk:Hell's Kitchen (U.S.) concerning preventative semi-protection on previous seasons. Please look at it and provide feedback. Thank you. Hasteur ( talk) 16:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi AussieLegend. You reverted my good faith changing of the position of Sydney Opera House, and I wonder what map you use? On Google Maps, Bing Maps, OpenStreetMap and Wikimapia, the coordinates I used are right in the middle of the Opera house buildings, whereas the previous coordinates were near the roundabout leading to the opera house. So, on what do you base your claim that the new coordinates point to a spot in the harbour (water)? Which map do you use, and why do you believe that map is more precise than the four maps I used? -- Jhertel ( talk) 06:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Hey AussieLegend, the chicken song in the BBT is not trivial. Saying it is trivial in that particular episode is your own point of view. They (the writers) didn't choose it randomly. Are you as blind as Sheldon or Amy or can you see there is a meaning why they picked that song ? (not randomly and therefore NOT TRIVIAL). I'm getting tired here on WP to meet so much of (context)blindness Ziyalistix ( talk) 21:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello there. Regarding my contribution to The Big Bang Theory article, I would not agree that under my latest revision it bears any difference, regarding citations, to corresponding subsections of the "Elements" section of the show. Please feed back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngyi1983 ( talk • contribs) 21:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Could you please expose the difference between the description included in the "science"/ "religion" section, and my contribution. I understand that these other sections are disputed too, but they are there... Ngyi1983 ( talk) 22:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have explained my actions earlier. I reverted your edits to the Degrassi: The Next Generation articles because you claimed that it would "provide for proper linking", but I saw no attempt to fix the links that you had broken by making those changes. Is there a way to search for links to anchors? I would like to fix links I broke when converting from the slashes. 117Avenue ( talk) 03:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Here's the proof that the twenty-sixth episode of season 2 was the season finale: http://dancemoms.wikia.com/wiki/Nationals_90210 and http://thecelebritysizzle.com/dance-moms-spoilers-the-season-2-finale-national-90210/. There was another link, but it wouldn't let me save it. -- KyoXTohru1 —Preceding undated comment added 03:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I am curious about your claim ... 'I always thought [radio presenter John Laws] was a bit up himself using the email address "legend@<domain>" so I decided to one-up him and become "Aussie legend". So, this would rightly mean when you decide to one-up John Laws then you become further up yourself than he would ever be? Yes, I think that is the only reasonable conclusion. Benyoch ...Don't panic! Don't panic!... ( talk) 00:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Apparently not resolved. Thank you. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 09:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
All the photoshoot section in all Cycles in ANTM are in bold letter so i think someone just ask me that it is unfair to just average so i switch it to bold, so it will be all fair...if your disturbed then that's not my problem its yours. -- GTPMF ( talk) 08:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
If your gonna switch it all average letters it's fine to me but do it to all the BNTM, ANTM, CNTM, AUSSIE NTM and many other TOP MODEL Shows so it will all fair.-- GTPMF ( talk) 08:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 20 |
Hello! With this edit, you stated in your summary that "evolution is not a theory." I realize that opponents of the concept often state that it's "just a theory", but a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment." So while I see nothing wrong with the wording to which you reverted, "theory of evolution" is a correct description. — David Levy 06:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Please, please, please tell me there's a special place in hell for IP editors who don't bother to learn even the most fundamental practices around here. (Beating head against wall.) We've got a doozie editing on two IP's resolving to the same suburban town in New Joisey, and edit warring merrily. You've dealt with them too, over article splits. -- Drmargi ( talk) 13:21, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Hey :) I'm doing a bit of an odd project - collecting municipal border signs/monuments and street signs for Commons. Looking around on Street View I can see there's border signs for Port Stephens on the Pacific Highway at Tomago, and on Nelson Bay Road just south of Fern Bay, while the local signs appear to vary (probably in age) between black writing on white signs, and white writing on smaller black signs (see e.g. [1]). Would it be possible to get photos of any of these for Commons? I have got Newcastle and Lake Macquarie sign exemplars on a previous visit, and intend to get the Central Coast ones later in the year if I can't find someone else to get those (strangely I've only found one Lake Macquarie border sign - on the south side - and no Newcastle ones on Street View.) Orderinchaos 09:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Please do not get rid of Up All Night (season 1) and redirect it to List of Up All Night episodes. Yes, I know what WP:SIZERULE is, but due to hard work and effort for it, the article deserves to be there. 68.44.51.49 ( talk) 11:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Hey there. I've reverted a few of your changes on List of Ringer episodes. Firstly, I re-added the title card (I forgot to add the non-free rationale to it, but have done so now). Also, just because it is a "list of episodes", does not mean it can not include additional information. I was following what List of Awake episodes had going (a FL nomination), as I plan on also cleaning up the article and nominating it for FL. A little bit of info on how the series was received, and how fans tried to save it from being cancelled adds to it, don't you think? If you disagree, surely we can work on an agreement together on whether or not such should be included, and what should be done in its place (because clearly the lead needs to be expanded upon further). Thank you, Statυs ( talk) 20:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Aussie, a small head scratcher. I notice you're changing out the Food Network Star infobox template. There's a small terminology issue: it lists how many chefs are in the competition. FNS competitors are not generally chefs. These are home cooks, a handful of whom have some professional training, but they're not chefs and FN is very specific about that. Is there some way to change chefs to competitors in the infobox? As "hairsplitty" as this may sound, we are writing an encyclopedia. -- Drmargi ( talk) 17:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Food Network Star (season 7) | |
---|---|
Season 13 |
{{Infobox television season}}
directly and the templates have since been deleted. Another 21 articles, including the Food Network Star articles, used {{Infobox television Top Chef}}
, which uses "Chef". I created a fork of {{Infobox television season}}
that used the same terminology and changed all 21 articles to use that. {{Infobox television Top Chef}}
has been deleted as well. The changes that I'm making at the moment are geared towards bypassing the fork altogether. The good news for you is that this enables us to make the heading whatever you want it to be. It's simply a matter of changing the data for cust_label_2
to whatever you want. --
AussieLegend (
talk)
17:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)No. Season 7 is showing in Russia now. Ed didn't called the best in episode 1, as well as Jay in ep. 5 and Ben in ep. 6. I've seen everything. Look at this series and make sure yourself. KIRILL95 ( talk) 17:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
It looks like you just reverted all the work that I did. Here's my response to your explanations:
Please ensure that edit summaries are accurate. This recent summary includes implications that are clearly incorrect. As I demonstrated to you on my talk page, these articles were de-linked almost 6 months ago, [6] which is also about 6 months before the AfDs and therefore very obviously not because of the AfDs. -- AussieLegend ( talk) 10:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
G'day Aussie Legend, I have been working hard on updating the references and I trust that they are, in the main, up to the standards expected for Wikipedia. Thank you for your feedback and input. Sorry that I have been a slow learner and frustrating for you. I have been able to learn from your links and advice. I am asking if now that the page is up to standard that it is appropriate that the warnings can now be removed. Thanks for your support in making this page look great. Ben Benwebboz ( talk) 07:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Since (book 2) has a discussion for it to be deleted (per the sake of it being a future season and all) do you think it would be wise to open a request for deleteion of (Book 1) as well? You, me, geraldo and I saw another editor who have agreed that the split was done prematurely (and without discussion). I would think a requestion for deletion is important as Sandstein thinks the information is duplicated on both the episode list and (Book 1) so he/she wants to redirect it to (Book 1)#episodes and not have a list of episodes page. I made this saying we shouldn't have (Book 1) then we wouldn't run into the problem of "duplication". We should wait until all 26 Season 1 episodes have aired and season 2 book 3 has some info before we create separate articles. We also have the fact that there really isn't a lot of info on the (Book 1) page anyway (most of it is taken from the main article and even links to the main article). I'm just not sure how to go about creating this discussion of deleting the page. - Alec ( talk) 17:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Am I wrong about this? I've had discussions before about Splitting up "List of episode" pages before and they've always ened up saying "It's too early to split." However A user
Sandstein has created a Season page already and linked the "List of episode" pages to the "Episodes" section of (Book 1) of the Legend of Korra so a "list of episodes" does not really have a page. They think there's enough info on the (Book 1) page to keep it but the "List of episodes" page was fine before and it's too early for it to be split. They also said that once we get (Book 2) we can re-create the list of episodes page where it tranluces (spelling?) from the season page to the list of episodes page where all you see is the episodes. Main discussion
here but there's more
here. -
Alec (
talk)
16:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Everytime I had a suggestion to split, the answer was that "it's too early" and in the case, it is. Just look at "Suits", "White Collar," "Good Luck Charlie," etc pages and they are not split as of yet. -
Alec (
talk)
16:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Viewers
parameter, but retained the Aux4
parameter. Generally, the ratings tables substantially duplicate what is in the episode tables. There are options, depending on how many columns are used. For example, the following works with Rizzoli & Isles season 1:No. in series |
No. in season |
Title | Directed by | Written by | Original air date | U.S. viewers (in millions) |
18-49 (rating/share) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 1 | "See One. Do One. Teach One" | Michael M. Robin | Janet Tamaro | July 12, 2010 | 7.55 | 2.1 | |
Episode summary |
Aux1
, Aux2
, Aux3
and Aux4
parameters.EpisodeNumber | EpisodeNumber2 | "Title"RTitle "AltTitle"RAltTitle |
Aux1 | DirectedBy | WrittenBy | Aux2 | Aux3 | OriginalAirDate | AltDate | ProdCode | Viewers | Aux4 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ShortSummary |
Alec, of course you're welcome to respond! Aussie and I have these little chats now and then. I just reverted the R&I table. Here's the thing with those: aside from the excessive space the take in an article, how much do we really need to document episode-to-episode that can't be found by following the link back to the source? The average reader can't tell you what a rating and a share means. Or what they key demo is all about. That level of detail drifts into fancruft, and certainly indiscriminate information. Viewership figures for each episode and a link to the details for the episode, then a summary of the seasonal ratings, which ultimately govern renewal decisions, are what we need. No more. Someone is adding elaborate ratings tables to the Top Chef articles as well. Why on earth would anyone care, especially after the fact. Time to go, to my way of thinking. -- Drmargi ( talk) 18:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
We're off again! What IS IT about the carved up season article that's so appealing? I haven't got a clue. He's taken it to dispute resolution, but it doesn't appear to be set up properly (not sure; never been there before.) -- Drmargi ( talk) 08:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
DRN is closed as having been filed to early. I was glad to see that. Alec, are you asking me to comment on Legend of Korra? I'll have to familiarize myself first. -- Drmargi ( talk) 00:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
May I ask why you deleted an entire article regarding Helena G. Wells that was JUST published tonight? I can understand the argument that her not being a regular is why you wouldn't want to have her listed as a main one in the character list page, but to delete the entire article itself without even approaching the author (me) about it before you did so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Electprogeny ( talk • contribs) 08:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
The reversion you just did was to go back to a mass deletion of arbitrary data removal. When I asked the person in question, whose user talk page reflects a rather interesting history of spurious deletions, the response I got was that it was to rewrite the article so it was not "in-universe" per the tag suggestion at the top of the page. It may very well have been done in good faith, but the deletions merely removed arbitrary sections of data without any rewrites and the deleted data (and references that had been verified by IShadowed) did not - in fact, have any affect whatsoever on the "in-universe" nature of the article that garnered the tag. I spent the better part of the day working with various wiki-helpers to rewrite the entirety of the article for this very purpose. I am currently waiting for a wiki-helper to review the changes that were made for the purpose of removing that tag - which I could have done on my own, but I am - in good faith - trying not to take any action without consensus from the more knowledgeable wiki-helpers.
If you are saying you believe the person made a good faith deletion of over 7,000 words from random areas of the article in 3 different edits in rapid succession - I have no issue with that, but I have watched you revert good faith edits so am unclear as to why you are reverting the change I just made (with the help of a wiki-helper who told me exactly what to do to get to the original state before the deletions). In this particular case, considering the level of effort to improve the article per all the guidelines, I'd like to understand what your take is on whether or not the deletions in question actually made the article less "in-universe" than it already was at the time of the initial deletions. Thank you. Electprogeny ( talk) 03:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
What you mean, I put a source and explained? MichelleTheola ( talk) 14:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Wanted to give you a courtesy note that I reverted despite a good faith assumption since I didn't see anything in the edits actually effecting the in universe question. ( Mynameisme91 ( talk) 03:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC))
( talk page stalker) Awfully well informed, and focused, for an editor with a handful of edits. I smell socks and hear ducks quacking. Any theories? -- Drmargi ( talk) 07:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Help! I made a complete mess of a move and now I can't get it to go where I want it. Want to be a pal and either clean up after me or tell me what to do? An editor made a series of moves of old seasons of The Next Food Network Star to its newer title, Food Network Star against consensus. I thought I was moving them back, and instead moved them to The Food Network Star (DUH!) Now I can't get them back to their original title. What'd I do, and how do I fix? I made a COLOSSAL mess! -- Drmargi ( talk) 01:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC) (ETA: I also left a message on the talk page of the admin who closed the case originally. I can't believe what I did!!)
Hey. In honour of Australia at the 2012 Summer Paralympics, I'm trying to get articles created about members of the team who don't have articles yet. This is a fairly big job and I could use a bit of assistance. If you have time, can you add information and sources to articles, add pictures to articles (Flickr? Commons?), fix prose on articles where sources have been included now (mostly men's athletics) and otherwise help prep them for DYK? I'd be happy to give you credit at DYK for all the articles you help improve. Thanks in advance. -- LauraHale ( talk) 05:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
|
I've upgraded this site. I've taken an example from NCIS. How do you like it and do you have any other suggestions? Thanks -- LAW CSI ( talk) 19:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Any chance that all the West Wing episode noms could be combined into a single group nom? I think we're seeing mostly copy/pasted comments anyway. Just thread by time stamp, and if someone has a not-quite-the-same comment, just thread it directly below their first timestamped comment. - jc37 19:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I see you've been involved in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television. I have begun a discussion on spoilers in episode lists and would appreciate your input. -- ke4roh ( talk) 02:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I smell socks: two of the accounts were created within the last 2 hours, and went right to the vandalism; also, when I blocked one, the other stopped editing, as if an autoblocker was triggered. -- Rs chen 7754 06:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I do not appreciate that you are going over my edits when adding the spoken wikipedia note to a couple of pages I am passionate about and have done recordings for. You have gone through my edits and done this, and I don't like that. Please don't do it again. TheJoshy ( talk) 07:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Alright mate, listen up! I don't know what it is you've got against Holden. Unless your a Fraud fan... TollHRT52 ( talk) 19:32, 10 August 2012 (AEST)
Was reading over your commants about the odd US copyright laws the rest of us are forced to follow. In Canada we created Wikimedia Canada you guys have anything like this? Trying to get this to help us with copyright. Moxy ( talk) 19:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
They never learn. -- Drmargi ( talk) 23:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Hey, Yeah that isn't me. Cheers, TheJosh ( talk) 02:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the help cleaning up my edit at http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Sea_Shepherd_Conservation_Society&diff=507882149&oldid=507879825
Do you think it would be better to put it back to the plural of lawyers, since it is on letter head with both lawyers information, or leave it singular, as only one signed it? El Heuro ( talk) 20:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. TRLIJC19 ( talk • contribs) 06:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
good work |
Keep up the good wikipedia work bro ImHerelol ( talk) 10:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC) |
Hi Aussie, could you replace the templates of all cycles (seasons) of America's Next Top Model and there will be replace templates: Infobox television to Infobox television season.
Here's the sample of Cycle 1 of America's Next Top Model will look like:
America's Next Top Model, Cycle 1 | |
---|---|
Season 13 | |
No. of episodes | 9 |
Release | |
Original network | UPN |
Original release | May 20 July 15, 2003 | –
Season chronology | |
This template will apply in all cycles of America's Next Top Model and other Top Model franchises (with cycle articles). ApprenticeFan work 12:28, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Nice catch on this sockpuppet, I'm glad that it was resolved quickly. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 01:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Aussie, in addition on replacing the wrong {{infobox television}} and replace with the correct {{infobox television season}}.
The articles to be following for replacing the correct templates for order since you contributed for America's Next Top Model:
Could we please discuss this on the Warehouse 13 page. I have sources for everything I added - I'm just not sure how to put them in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfmclean ( talk • contribs) 07:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Could you resize this photo to lower than 300 dimension on using per WP:NFCC? ApprenticeFan work 14:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
In the Sydney article we can not change anything without your consent (and Bridge). When doing a new edition or when I revert your edition - always my (and other users) versions is reverted and you tell me - that I created a discussion. When you also will discuss first?
Please willingness to cooperate and compromise. OK? Temperate climate in Sydney according to many users is absurd, been and will be a lot of discussion on this topic. I suggested a compromise "temperate subtropical". What do you think? Subtropical-man ( talk) 15:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
There is a dispute about the number of episodes that have aired in the ending show Victorious at talk:List of Victorious episodes#Number of episodes in the series basically related to whether or not long special episodes should be counted as a single episode or as multiple episodes for the purpose of the episode list. Any comments you would choose to make there would be welcome because of your knowledge of the issues, involvement in TV series articles and comments you have made at template talk:Episode list. This may also be a wider issue with other TV series articles. Geraldo Perez ( talk) 16:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
There is a proposal currently at Talk:Hell's Kitchen (U.S.) concerning preventative semi-protection on previous seasons. Please look at it and provide feedback. Thank you. Hasteur ( talk) 16:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi AussieLegend. You reverted my good faith changing of the position of Sydney Opera House, and I wonder what map you use? On Google Maps, Bing Maps, OpenStreetMap and Wikimapia, the coordinates I used are right in the middle of the Opera house buildings, whereas the previous coordinates were near the roundabout leading to the opera house. So, on what do you base your claim that the new coordinates point to a spot in the harbour (water)? Which map do you use, and why do you believe that map is more precise than the four maps I used? -- Jhertel ( talk) 06:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Hey AussieLegend, the chicken song in the BBT is not trivial. Saying it is trivial in that particular episode is your own point of view. They (the writers) didn't choose it randomly. Are you as blind as Sheldon or Amy or can you see there is a meaning why they picked that song ? (not randomly and therefore NOT TRIVIAL). I'm getting tired here on WP to meet so much of (context)blindness Ziyalistix ( talk) 21:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello there. Regarding my contribution to The Big Bang Theory article, I would not agree that under my latest revision it bears any difference, regarding citations, to corresponding subsections of the "Elements" section of the show. Please feed back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngyi1983 ( talk • contribs) 21:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Could you please expose the difference between the description included in the "science"/ "religion" section, and my contribution. I understand that these other sections are disputed too, but they are there... Ngyi1983 ( talk) 22:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have explained my actions earlier. I reverted your edits to the Degrassi: The Next Generation articles because you claimed that it would "provide for proper linking", but I saw no attempt to fix the links that you had broken by making those changes. Is there a way to search for links to anchors? I would like to fix links I broke when converting from the slashes. 117Avenue ( talk) 03:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Here's the proof that the twenty-sixth episode of season 2 was the season finale: http://dancemoms.wikia.com/wiki/Nationals_90210 and http://thecelebritysizzle.com/dance-moms-spoilers-the-season-2-finale-national-90210/. There was another link, but it wouldn't let me save it. -- KyoXTohru1 —Preceding undated comment added 03:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I am curious about your claim ... 'I always thought [radio presenter John Laws] was a bit up himself using the email address "legend@<domain>" so I decided to one-up him and become "Aussie legend". So, this would rightly mean when you decide to one-up John Laws then you become further up yourself than he would ever be? Yes, I think that is the only reasonable conclusion. Benyoch ...Don't panic! Don't panic!... ( talk) 00:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Apparently not resolved. Thank you. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 09:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
All the photoshoot section in all Cycles in ANTM are in bold letter so i think someone just ask me that it is unfair to just average so i switch it to bold, so it will be all fair...if your disturbed then that's not my problem its yours. -- GTPMF ( talk) 08:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
If your gonna switch it all average letters it's fine to me but do it to all the BNTM, ANTM, CNTM, AUSSIE NTM and many other TOP MODEL Shows so it will all fair.-- GTPMF ( talk) 08:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)