This page 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.

Hi. Can you give your thoughts in this discussion I've started? Thanks. Happy Holidays. Nightscream ( talk) 18:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on File:Sonic Collection.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 12:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Ethan Bennett TB.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 05:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I can understand why you think it's wrong to link to a page that is a redirect, but in the case of disambiguation, it's an established policy: WP:INTDABLINK. Doing so marks the link as "intentional" and tells members of the WP:DPL project not to "fix" the link. Would you mind if I restored the intentional dab links you removed? Thanks, -- JaGa ^talk 08:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Looking at it, I think it would be inappropriate to restore them.

• The hatnote: While it would be proper by WP:DAB#HOWTODAB to include "(disambiguation)", there may be a larger issue that hasn't been broached: Is it even needed? See WP:NAMB. I can see the character being listed on the dab page, but a direct search for Buffy Summers is the equivalent of Buffy the Vampire Slayer (character).
• "Buffy the Vampire Slayer franchise": And yes, I do believe "franchise" should be part of the linked text. Adding "(disambiguation)" does not help anything, it just muddles to text for reading. I agree with the premise that for hatnote navigation, "(disambiguation)" is fine since we're dealing with basically "internal stuff". But, forcing it into the body of an article creates a disruption in reading the article, especially since the character appears in most if not all the works of fiction and spin-off midia listed on Buffy the Vampire Slayer. One lat thing to keep in mind, adding "franchise" to the link text does imply that either you are going to an article about all the related "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" works or a list of them - either a set list or a dab page.

- J Greb ( talk) 18:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Let me tell you the problem I'm facing. Buffy Summers links directly to Buffy the Vampire Slayer (See here.) At the WP:DPL project, our aim is to eliminate all links to disambiguation pages. This is possible by either (a) pointing the link to an article instead of the disambig (the correct solution 95%+ of the time, for example here), or (b) marking the link as "intentional" per WP:INTDABLINK, for example here. Now, I need to fix these three links in Buffy Summers so the article will no longer show up in our reports as "needs fixing". What do you suggest? (Also, please note that, with the exception of the hatnote, my edits did not put (disambiguation) into the article text. Further, if you want me to conceal the (disambiguation) in the hatnote, that's 100% OK with me.) -- JaGa ^talk 03:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, the hatnote, like the one you point to [1], seems contrary to WP:NAMB - they are not really ambiguious titles, so {{ Other uses}} shouldn't be used.

As for the other two places... First off, my bad, it didn't connect for me that the piped text had been left. Second, there are also people who work to reduce the use of non-printworthy redirects. Not as a project, no, but it still occures, especially when using the redirect adds to the file length. Buffy the Vampire Slayer (disambiguation) really isn't a printable redirect and it does add to file size since it redirects to Buffy the Vampire Slayer. If I had to make a choice between not using a non-printworthy redirect and emptying a warning list, the back end warnig list can get an addendum list of "These are resonable exceptions". - J Greb ( talk) 16:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think we're getting closer to an agreement. We can definitely take out the hatnote, I've no problem with that. For the article links, they do have to be fixed, and there's nothing wrong with linking to a redirect per WP:NOTBROKEN, and we're told not to worry about site performance per WP:PERF. What would you think about removing the hatnote and restoring the piped article redirects? -- JaGa ^talk 17:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm with you on the hatnote. But clearly explain why it's going away.

The rest though... I don't like the idea of using NOTBROKEN to add or change a link target in this way. The link really wan't broken going in, it is just part of an exceedingly narrow group where a non-dabbed dab page is linked as the proper target topic in an article body. The bottom line is that if the guideline at INTDABLINK (yes, I just checked, that page isn't marked as "Policy") were under review, I'd argue it needs to account for the less than 1% of cases that don't fit the "target a specific article" and "navigation only link" categories. - J Greb ( talk) 18:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought you wanted the hatnote to go away. What do you want to happen with the hatnote?

I don't understand what the problem is with the intentional dablink. It helps out the WP:DPL project and has no affect on the readability of the page. These links do fit the 1% you're talking about (there should be a Buffy the Vampire Slayer (franchise) article, but there isn't). Can you point to any solid reason to oppose the change? -- JaGa ^talk 21:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

For clarity:

The hatnote: Yes, it can go. But to make sure all know why the edit summary should clearly spell out that by NAMB the article is not ambiguious and the hat isn't needed. It isn't going to be inharently clear to all.

As for the intentional, in article text dablinks... You pointed out that ~95% of links to dab pages are the result of missing the right page/article, and are normally cleared by pointing to the right page or a redlink. Of the remaining ~5%, 95 to 99% of those are bald navigation links and not part of the text of an article - hatnotes, see also, embedded in navigation boxes, etc. Again, these are easily fixed in regard to the guideline you point to at INTDABLINK. That leaves, at best, ~1% of cases were the link was originally inserted to avoid a redirect and the subject of the article the link is in touches on all or most of the topics on the dab page. Yes, someone familiar with INTDABLINK would more likely than not point the link through a redirect, not going to argue that one. But to come through after the fact and change the link to point to a redirect takes more than a guideline. - J Greb ( talk) 22:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

But what's wrong with the redirect? There isn't a performance concern, or a user experience concern, as it's hidden by a pipe. If I don't fix it now another person will later. What reason is there not to take care of the problem now? -- JaGa ^talk 01:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

It's actually part of NOTBROKEN - the potential of the link to actually become an article. As pointed out, an article on the whole franchise is a possibility. And such an article would be the central article, no dab. Until that article is writen, or the sections migrated from the articles on the show, film, comcs, games, etc, that central article is the dab page. The pointer isn't broken, the article just isn't there yet.

- J Greb ( talk) 23:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Good lord. How about I just walk away from this and let you have your way? Someone else will take care of this later, and we've both wasted too much time on a single dablink already. -- JaGa ^talk 22:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

First off, I'm sorry for the typo in the above post - an extra ' wound up bolding way more than I intended.

Beyond that... I'm sorry I don't agree with the premise that there is no exception to DPL's goal regarding "(disambiguation)" and direct links. I'm sorry you haven convinced me of that position. I'm sorry I didn't take your suggestion from the 12th - that an "agreement" would only exist if you got every thing you wanted - and let you have your way and walk away at that time.

- J Greb ( talk) 01:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Out of curiosity how long are you going to protect the Iron Man template. − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you think it's hit the point where the round and round won't happen and the type of changes that were involved will be hased out on the talk page? - J Greb ( talk) 23:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Not entirely sure. Only one way to find out. − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 23:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Anyways one reason why I am asking is because I think War Machine in other media should be on there. ;) − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I know you're probably still working on it, but there seems to be a problem with the syntax that you add to the template. Its visible across the transcluded articles. Just letting you know and thanks for helping to improve the template.-- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 17:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Yup... tryoing to dig out the code doing that... - J Greb ( talk) 17:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks good! There's still seems to be some trouble at Ms. Marvel, I'd do it myself but its a little to complex for me.-- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 18:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. L&S: Both sort fields have to be in place. - J Greb ( talk) 18:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The simple reason is because those sections had sources, and the ones I removed were unlikely to expand beyond mere trivia. WesleyDodds ( talk) 00:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

God, looking at those refs, many of them are not suitable (ie. Levar Burton's Twitter feed). Usually when I start working heavily on an article, I am bold and do some massive culling, then build the article back up. I find it far more productive doing it that way than trying to find sources for material that may not even belong in an article in the first place. But given the sort of arguments one tends to run into on comics articles here, I don't think that would be the best approach for you. But you could try. WesleyDodds ( talk) 06:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello. It's been a while. Could you take a look at [ this possibly escalating situation] for a neutral evaluation before it gets any worse/to quickly reach an acceptable conclusion. Thank you. Dave ( talk) 09:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Please if you have time and you know anything to it (I have seen that you have made edits in the article area which owns relations on it) , please look on the article Audio theatre, somebody placed a erase discussion on it. after we have had a merge discussion. It would be interesting what you would say to the merge and the delete discussion. And possibly it could help to contact other people that they should help also. )-: (In the moment you are not on my watchlist) --- Merry Xmas -- Soenke Rahn ( talk) 04:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi. A disagreement has arisen over which of two photos would be better as the main Infobox image for the Ben Templesmith article. Can you participate in this discussion? Thanks, and Happy Holidays. :-) Nightscream ( talk) 04:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi there,

I wiki-gnome a lot, and I don't usually question your edits. But, I don't understand why you are removing the {{ Avengers}} template from Avengers characters? 108.69.80.49 ( talk) 02:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The long and short is that the navboxes are supposed to be for 2 way traffic. Having it on an article like Hawkeye (comics) just feeds into the core topics from the fringe. And the long standing consensus is that all the articles listed at List of Avengers members don't get put into the navbox because

• It over loads the 'box;
• The membership fliud, making it impossible to use the "current" line up as a limiter; and
• Without a limiter, layout arguments crop up - "true" membership status, segragationg the "current" and "former", teams, etc.

As it stands, there are ~25-30 articles that currently have the 'box that shouldn't - [2] - and about a half dozen that are listed in the 'box that are questionable - "foes" that aren't "key", primarily Avenger's foes, or read to the non-fan as "Avengers character".

- J Greb ( talk) 03:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

Why you took the Batman NavBox from this article?

You say there that is unsupported but I see that works perfectly...

Can you explain this to me, please?

Thanks Arussom ( talk) 13:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure.

Navboxes are for 2 way navigation, so they should not be placed on an article that is not listed within the navbox.

In the case of Sarah Essen Gordon, yes, the character did appear within Batman related comics. And yes, the character was linked directly to othe Batman related characters. But the article isn't listed within {{ Batman}} and isn't likely to be included in it. So placing the 'box on the article is unsupported.

- J Greb ( talk) 16:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)