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.

Welcome to Wikipedia, Drovethrughosts! I am Collectonian and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{ helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{ helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

-- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 21:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought putting Next and Previous season on each season page was completely stupid, since anyone that knows how to count would realize that the number that comes after 5 is 6 and the number prior is 4. However, I suppose it makes sense for convenient linking to each season page. MiataMike ( talk) 01:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

That's the reason for it, they're links for navigation for the previous and next seasons. Any television season page includes these. Anyway, no problem. Drovethrughosts ( talk) 01:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The information about the music during Jim's party -- 'The Skin of My Yellow Country Teeth' by Clap Your Hands Say Yeah -- in Season Two, "E-mail Surveillance" is correct. Check it. Your revision makes no sense. The prior sentence, as well, features a comment which could be just as easily qualified as "subjective," re: Michael's attempts to seem "hip." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.162.57 ( talk) 01:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for sourcing references for the 9th season so quickly. Nice work. Cheers. -- Ckatz ^chat _spy 20:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Drovethrughosts ( talk) 14:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Why are you removing the link to the Convention? Other pages link to fansites. It's of interest to anyone who wants to further their interest in Six Feet Under. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjenn68 ( talk • contribs) 21:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Fansites are against external link guidelines. The website doesn't contain any worthwhile information past the article, it doesn't seem to contain info about the show, but simply advertises a SFU convention. Wikipedia is not for promoting/advertising your own personal websites. — Drovethrughosts ( talk) 23:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Err, I think you're being too harsh. Look at it now http://www.sixfeetunderconvention.co.uk The blog will aggregate information and essays about the series and bring fans together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjenn68 ( talk • contribs) 11:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

ABC is a fine reference, but myspace isn't. BOVINEBOY 2008 :) 23:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

That's why I changed the reference. You reverted the edit I made where I changed the reference to ABC. Maybe you just didn't notice I changed the link. Drovethrughosts ( talk) 00:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh! I didn't notice that, I just saw that you undid TheRealFynnShysa's edit. Sorry! BOVINEBOY 2008 :) 00:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It's all good. :) Drovethrughosts ( talk) 00:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I noticed you moved every Angel episode back to the way it was before I changed them. Do you really think that is necessary? The reason I did that in the first place was to distinguish them from other TV shows that have similar titles? Shaneymike ( talk) 15:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I moved them because per naming convention ( WP:TV-NAME) they should be named like that. Drovethrughosts ( talk) 15:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I see. Very well then. I shall undo all the reverts I have made. Shaneymike ( talk) 17:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to stop in and say "Nice work!" on your edits to List of Trailer Park Boys episodes. Looking a lot better now! MrMoustacheMM ( talk) 02:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Thought it needed a clean-up. Drovethrughosts ( talk) 13:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It was just easiest to revert to get the Thursday in the lead-in. I don't really care what the rest of the article says about Thursday as long as you can come to the page and within 3 seconds see that the show is on Thursdays. No reason to send people off to another website just to figure that out. I found out Dino Stamatopoulos from Moral Orel was involved and instantly wanted to know when I could watch it and Wikipedia article didn't mention Thursday once. That was irritating. Alatari ( talk) 08:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed the Thursday stuff because usually, the day of which it airs isn't mentioned - just the date. The timeslot is shown in the Ratings section. I removed the Thursday stuff because it was redundant, but I keep it in the lead-in. Drovethrughosts ( talk) 13:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou. So it's the norm to not show the day of the week in the lead-in? Alatari ( talk) 04:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

When using dates on Wikipedia, the day of the week is not included (as far as I can tell), so that's why. Usually TV show articles will have a section on their seasonal ratings (such as here for Community), and there's where the timeslot info can be found. Drovethrughosts ( talk) 14:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Ludwig Links Unlinked

Hi! You (good faith) reverted my (good faith) addition of an external link to the composer's site? Please explain. Bob Stein - VisiBone ( talk) 01:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Because it's not for the article for the composer. That link can be added to his article. It'd be like adding every official website for each of the actors' to the article, it doesn't make much sense. Hope you understand. Drovethrughosts ( talk) 01:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation! Please consider another viewpoint. First of all it was not a link to the composer's home page, but to his music collection subpage, most of which is theme music for the show, Community (which by the way is pretty great, huh). I'd like to convince you that it was not a link to information about the composer so much as a link to richer content about the show: music tracks that are not on the released soundtrack. I suggest it is important content because I believe that I like many others often search for music I hear on movies and TV series. The only place I could find that content was the composer's site. It should not be excluded simply because it's published on the composer's site. Now that I understand your position a little clearer I hope you will understand that I would like to undo your revert. Bob Stein - VisiBone ( talk) 13:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to edit the Other tracks subsection within the Media section and mention the various other music composed for the show by Ludwig that is not on the soundtrack and use the website as a reference. Now, you've done something similar, but there's just one track listed there and I'm sure there's more there (although I'm not sure if every track there is for Community). And since you're using the link as a reference, there's not much need in also placing it in the external links section. Sound good? Drovethrughosts ( talk) 14:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Please do not upload screenshots for identification only. It is not permitted by our non-free content policy. Thank you, The leftorium 15:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Will they be deleted? What must I add to for the them to be okay? I've seen tons of other television episodes articles that use screenshots from the episodes. Drovethrughosts ( talk) 16:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

If you want to upload a screenshot it must meet the non-free content criteria, specifically #8: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." The leftorium 16:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I updated the image, is that an acceptable summary? Drovethrughosts ( talk) 16:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it is not. The image still doesn't meet the criterion I posted above. You should also take into consideration the following statement from WP:NFCC:

Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense, or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available; "acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose. (As a quick test, before adding non-free content requiring a rationale, ask yourself: "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" and "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all?" If the answer to either is yes, the non-free content probably does not meet this criterion.)

The leftorium 16:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Updated again. Drovethrughosts ( talk) 17:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. You can't just add "It gives visual information regarding the television episode in ways which text cannot" to the description page. That statement is not true at all. I can easily describe the image in words: "Buffy opens a door." (etc.) The leftorium 18:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, well I don't get what I need to do then, as I looked at other examples for images being used for television episodes and they basically have the exact same thing or even less, and those images have been left alone. Drovethrughosts ( talk) 18:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Just because there are other articles with images like these doesn't mean it's allowed. Lots of articles contain BLP violations too. Does that make it okay to create a BLP violation? The leftorium 13:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Then tell me the bottom line, will they be tagged for deletion or what? Because I feel I've been randomly pinpointed when I uploaded a bunch of images in a row that pretty much use the same style of rationale that thousands of other images have. What exactly is wrong – the image I uploaded, its description, the rationale I use, the purpose, etc.? Drovethrughosts ( talk) 13:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

They should be tagged for deletion. That doesn't mean they will be anytime soon though. The image copyright backlog is rather big right now, and, as you say, there are thousands of images like these. What's wrong about images such as File:Buffy 1x01.jpg is that they can easily be replaced by words ( WP:NFCC #1). Non-free content should only be used when it significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic ( WP:NFCC #8). The leftorium 14:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

My plan was to get an image for every episode, picking a key moment or a memorable one that you can identity the episode with, so once you see the image, it's easier to recognize what the episode is about. If you're saying not every episode article is worthy of that, I understand - and only very important episodes (ex. season finale, series finale, big episodes) should have images, then I guess I could just do that. As for it being replaced by words, well, I'm using the image in the infobox, so the image is associated with the episode. I'm not just tossing random images throughout the episode guide. The image in question shows Buffy entering the school library for the first time, and the library becomes a very important location for the first three seasons. I don't see how an infobox that has an image does not improve the article significantly. Drovethrughosts ( talk) 15:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it doesn't matter if it's a screenshot from a regular episode or from a season finale. You have to think to yourself, "Does this image significantly help readers understand what is written in the text of the article, or is the text alone enough?" File:Buffy 1x01.jpg is clearly not needed to understand the text in the Welcome to the Hellmouth article. The leftorium 16:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I checked out your contributions page on your userpage and I saw some Office episodes under the Good article reviews section (such as Heavy Competition), which I guess that means you have contributed to, and they all contain images in the infobox. I checked the summaries and rationales for those images, and they definitely have less information than I put for my image uploads. So I ask you, did you flag those images and/or told the uploaders that those images don't met the criteria? Drovethrughosts ( talk) 21:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't contribute to those articles, I only reviewed them. This was done almost a year ago, before I knew about the non-free content criteria. In June of last year I had an RfA that failed in part because of this lack of knowledge. Partners in Crime (Doctor Who) (an FA) is a good example of when to use a non-free image. The design of the aliens is heavily discussed in the production section, and the image actually helps readers understand th text. The leftorium 14:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm going to continue to upload images for certain episodes in which I think the image will improve/help the article. Thanks for all the replies. Drovethrughosts ( talk) 15:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Glad you like 'em – though it appears above that it may all be for nought! — Tamfang ( talk) 22:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, hopefully not. Drovethrughosts ( talk) 22:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey. Just so you know, your additions to List of Community episodes‎, particularly your episode summaries, have been removed for being potential copyright violations. I don't know how you were sourcing them - by writing them on your own or taking them from other sites - but enough people were unhappy with them that they were removed. The discussion is at Talk:List of Community episodes‎, but we should look into rewriting them. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: User:Daniel10600, I think he may be Daniel LaHue. All his edits came mostly to that article and now 24. ---- moreno oso ( talk) 02:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

He took down the maintenance tags I placed on the Daniel LaHue article he created. ---- moreno oso ( talk) 02:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

When I just added the citation needed templates, I noticed that Daniel LaHue is categorized as a MIT grad but yet that info does not appear in his IMDb bio. Kind of funny how the article reads exactly the same as the IMDb entry about how a show name came to be named for "his friends". ---- moreno oso ( talk) 03:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The article needs to be tagged for deletion. It's complete nonsense, obviously he's just creating a fake article on himself stating he has written for 24 and Prison Break, it's laughable. Drovethrughosts ( talk) 13:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you nominate it. ---- moreno oso ( talk) 14:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I've nominated it now. Drovethrughosts ( talk) 16:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

This is when I love my OCD. Too tired to properly cite it myself, so here's you Hart Hanson Twitter link -- http://twitter.com/HartHanson/status/14464466077 -- KnownAlias contact 21:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much! All I could find was blog posts and the like that mentioned that or copied what his tweet was, and even after googling his exact tweet about the episodes, it didn't even show up. So thanks again. Drovethrughosts ( talk) 21:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm flattered that you copied my change of "aired along with" → "coincided with"; but for Buffy 4–5 / Angel 1–2 I would not have done so, as they were a package! — Tamfang ( talk) 04:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you were just changing the phrase to something more "elegant", so I changed it for all the other ones. "Aired along with" should be used for those seasons, because there were crossovers between the shows, is that what you mean? Or because they were on the same network for those seasons? Drovethrughosts ( talk) 13:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Because they were shown together and (I assume) marketed together. — Tamfang ( talk) 17:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, well I changed it back to 'aired along with" for Buffy seasons 4 and 5. Thanks. Drovethrughosts ( talk) 17:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I'm just replying to what you posted on my talk page thing (I'm still a complete noob in relation to wikipedia editing) and honestly I just wanted to say thanks for the advice. Like I say, I'm pretty new at this. I'm glad that you're also watching these pages to clean up any mistakes I might make because I want them to be as high quality as possible. Once the Angel ones are finished I might go and update the Buffy seasonal pages (The season synposis' at least) because they are fairly lacking. But yeah, thanks! :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morda898 ( talk • contribs) 19:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, for some reason the List of Angel episodes page seems to have "melded" with the Angel (season 4) page. If you go to the season four section on the list of episodes it comes up with ALL of the same stuff that's on the season 4 page. If you delete anything on either it deletes it on both. I have no idea how this happened or how to solve it. Do you have any tips? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morda898 ( talk • contribs) 17:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

You removed the <onlyinclude> tags and the {{ Episode list/sublist}} template which are required for proper transclusion in this edit. I have restored it.  _Xeworlebi ^{( talk)} 18:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

We share a lot of the same editing area. I reverted two additions of italic titles that appeared in my watchlist. I only found out about this tonight but having read the discussion that started in the early summer on this i have found that the change in policy is with maybe 30% support. If you look at the discussion where the final tally was posted and the announcement in change of policy was made the numbers there even show no clear support for this. I commented afterward as it was closed by the time i found out about this. It took seeing a watchlist flooded by someone uncertain about whether to apply this or not for me to become aware of it. It doesn't help any that there are two different RfC (that i have found) on this from the last few months. One a majority nay and the other a 3-way split. I am not a big fan of ruling by consensus but i do know when i am not seeing it. I should also point out that so far as i know i am the lone voice on this. If you want to put the italics back in Wonderfalls and Vanished then fine. I figured i need register some protest edit to this sudden change in policy and i picked two of my older favourite Fox shows. Just happened to be you both times. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 05:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, I guess I jumped the gun a little bit and got edit-happy. I'm just not going to make any further edits regarding the italic title template for now and wait and see what happens. Drovethrughosts ( talk) 13:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

My mistake - sorry, didn't look at it properly before reverting. I feel such a fool.... Gus Haynes ( talk) 15:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

It's understandable. Drovethrughosts ( talk) 15:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

"Em dash is correct" – please explain. Hearfourmewesique ( talk) 20:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at the Manual of Style regarding dashes. In same paragraph in the Curb article, you can see the usage of the em dash. Drovethrughosts ( talk) 21:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Quote: "Spaced en dashes – such as here – can replace unspaced em dashes in all of the ways discussed above. Several major publishers use spaced en dashes to the complete exclusion of em dashes. Use one style consistently throughout an article." There is only one em dash apart from the one in question, the rest (separating character names from their descriptions) are en dashes. Hearfourmewesique ( talk) 08:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I have no problem either way. From what I've seen on here, em dashes are preferred when used during a sentence and en dashes are used for ranges and formatting such as what you mentioned about separating character names and descriptions. If you want to change it back to an en dash, go ahead, just make sure and change the other one. Drovethrughosts ( talk) 14:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I was just about to wikilink Peter Lauer in the Dead Like Me episodes list, LOL. :) Quasy Boy 21:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Haha, yeah I saw the addition to the Scrubs pages in my watchlist, so I went and looked at what other shows I've watched that he's directed, and DLM was the only one where there wasn't already a link. I'm fast, haha. :) Drovethrughosts ( talk) 21:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Just letting you know, ive established a 24 movie page and userfied it(since the movie hasnt starting filming yet). We should work together in the future since you magnage the 24 tv series page, lol, its under fr durant/24 movie F.R Durant ( talk) 10:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'm really sorry, I didn't see that. My mistake, feel free to revert :). I really don't understand why they did that, though. Jayy008 ( talk) 20:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)