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.

2008, January Information

Hello Huntster, how is it going. We have discussed about posting youtube video link on wikipedia about a year ago (song by Evanescence). I came across Chandra Crawford today that two youtube links are there. How would one judge on the issue in such case? Ktsquare (talk) 21:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Greetings Ktsquare. These videos are absolutely a copyright violation; doubly so, since the subject matter (Olympics coverage) is copyright the International Olympic Committee and the "local" broadcasts themselves are almost certainly copyright the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Basically, any authorized broadcast video coverage of the Olympics will be copyrighted...they often have a disclaimer which says something to the effect of "The telecast is a copyright of the International Olympics Committee; any reproduction (rebroadcast?) without authorization is strictly forbidden." I've gone ahead and removed the two links. — Huntster ( talk • email • contribs) 22:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks good! I thought about using the image gallery format but kinda liked the large thumb images. Thanks for the help. Eleutherosmartin ( talk) 16:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

(X-Posted) No problem. Images larger than 300-350px tend to be discouraged except in particular circumstances, such as panoramic views (and even then, they should be kept to a minimum size). It's mostly to keep things clean-looking on the articles, but also because they are considered just that, thumbnails, with the larger image just a click away. — Huntster ( talk • email • contribs) 00:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Huntster - Could you please look at the section example of callsign structure for any problems? It was added today, and needed copyediting. Now, I'm assuming (you know what they say about assume!) that the ITU is the prescribing authority for callsign structure, I've been looking through their website and have not been able to find any reference material... Edit Centric ( talk) 02:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Not all links can or will look like the IMDB links. I know you like the Charmed article to be to your standards but you are going against nearly every other Wikipedia article about a television show or character. It's nearly impossible to have all links look alike but how I input the link originally is how it's done on very many pages. I did try to pretti-fy it to look similar to the other links, but that's not realistic in general. Maybe a discussion on the talk page would be in order. KellyAna ( talk) 02:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

(X-Posted) I'm not formatting it per my standards, I'm formatting it per how almost all templated links appear (such as those directly above the TNT entry). Seems to me that is fairly standard, else they would not appear that way. I don't link things like the TNT.tv, since I dislike linking things that aren't immediately related to the article content, but that's my personal preference. However, I would suggest linking to the Turner Network Television article rather than the website (unrelated external links are strongly discouraged, as opposed to internal links). I would like to remind you that just because it is done a certain way on other pages, does not make it correct (this applies to both of us...neither of us will always get what we want, but we should strive for a look of professionalism. This is an encyclopaedia we are building!). — Huntster ( t • @ • c) 05:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

User:LaraLove/Bathrobe Cabal/Meetup. The 'boro is certainly close enough that I'm sure you can manage to swing by. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Hey Dox, I noticed you were rating a number of TN articles, but why did you rate them all (at least the ones I noticed) as "low"? If it was just to get a rating on them, that's not a good idea...if no rating is present, at least someone can come around to give a proper one...now no one will really know. TBI, TWRA, UT, etc, should at least be Mid, if not High or Top. TBI...top, TWRA...mid, University of Tennessee system...high. Just curious as to your reasoning. — Huntster ( t • @ • c) 16:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Huntster, I did not rate them all low, just most of them. As a matter of fact, I assigned an importance rating to all TN tagged articles that did not have one. And you are right in one point, I indeed had the idea to get them all rated to get a basis. I rated them in comparison to each other, that's why I did the whole bunch in a day. Remember how difficult it was to find proper formulations for the importance ratings, how to define them? I used the importance rating definitions ( Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tennessee/Assessment#Importance_assessment Assessment) as a basis for my rating. It was some 800+ articles that were rated. If you take any 800 random articles and rate them you will end up with 90% stubs and 90% low rated articles, probably more. There will always be some sort of disagreement. Maybe I underrated a few of the articles and overrated others and on again other articles, we might just have different opinion about.

The importance rating is a mysterious topic. I found that out when I started the assessment page for the TN project with your help. I compared a lot of different ones. You know what the core thing is they disagree about? The importance rating! Some treat it as the importance of an article for the project, very few use priority instead of importance. Again others (like the TN project) make it dependedent on the casual reader, and what he or she might have previous knowledge about or might be most interested in. The FAQ of the assessment page also encourages every member of the TN project to add or change ratings. If you find a rating you disagree with, please change it! That is how Wikipedia balances out, in my opinion. doxTxob \  ^talk 23:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Oh, I'm not trying to complain loudly or anything, I was just curious as to what was going on. Mostly I thought that the rating of some, such as those above, didn't make particular sense, given that I'd consider them of importance to more than just a local town crowd. Eh, we'll figure something out. Perhaps we can organise a "rating day", and divide up articles between willing participants for a thorough count based on agreed upon standards. — Huntster ( t • @ • c) 02:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Note that the conversation was continued in a somewhat negative fashion by others. See User talk:DoxTxob/Archive 1#WP:TN importance rating.

• Hunster, I would like to invite you to come on a fun trip with me as I write, hopefully together with a few "friend Wikipedians", some future (?) WikiEssays. All in good fun, and I think it'd be a great outlet for some of the recent nervous energy and excessive typing some of us have done on recent debates. I have some formatting laid out and invite you to Be Very Bold in contributing to the articles if you feel so led. It's all meant to be in the spirit of good fun and collaboration, kinda like a mini-WikiProject or something. Check the "proposed" essay topics out here. You can also add your name to the "contributors" or even "planned contributors" (if you can't add now but plan to soon/eventually) list at the essay talk page. You'll see it's all laid out pretty simply. Yes, drop-down... just like an Advent Calendar... I know... I Hope to See You There!!! VigilancePrime ( talk) 05:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC) :-)

Honestly, I'm surprised at your apparent position given Illa's non-arguments, and the history of this article. You remember the fuss with the old logo in this article? That *had* commentary as I recall, and the entire thing was removed. I think you know that text could be written about the logo and its relation to this band. The logo has been more stable than the lineup. And I might have done it had this started as a talk page request saying "hey, it would be helpful if there were some commentary on the logo, and it would be good to get that done by March when the fair use crunch happens". But that's not how these image sweeps seem to get handled. Gimmetrow 06:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Note that this was in reference to a discussion of the Evanescence logo on Talk:Evanescence. I think.

Hunster, you've helped me on this before and I know you're better at this than I am. I have tried a lotta stuff to get the FIPS part of the table top working. Everything else is working fantastic from where you had fixed parts before, however the FIPS reference just doesn't want to include what is put into the parameter to make the reference URL work like it should. It is putting the variable name in {{{state_initials}}} instead of putting the value of the variable. If we can get that part working all else will be fixed and could start putting it into use. If you have a second please take a look at it. You can wipe out the sandbox if you want I've just been trying to some random things to get it to work. I appreciate your help. Thanks. -- Dan9186^{( T • E • C)} January 28, 2008 23:56 (UTC)

I saw where you have worked on the template some and I certainly appreciate the help. As for "intruding" on my sandbox, its a sandbox I was under the impression that it was there for whatever was needed of it. It seems to be that you're very well on top of things but if you have any questions just let me know, you can e-mail me on here and I will get it at home or work. Thanks for the help. -- Dan9186^{( T • E • C)} January 31, 2008 02:46 (UTC)

Huntster, I noticed that, in the course of editing the template for the infobox university back in November, you removed the public transit field entirely. Any particular reason for this? I didn't see any discussion anywhere regarding this topic, so I'm wondering if it was just a mistake. Aepoutre ( talk) 00:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

(X-Posted from Template talk:Infobox University) Yes, look below at the #Extraordinarily bloated section (two below this one); this wasn't done unilaterally. The issue with extraneous fields had been raised more than once. — Huntster ( t • @ • c) 13:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

2008, February Information

There's an issue with User:Olympic god doing mass changes to the Charmed article. I'm done trying to maintain order, ,I've reverted three times so I can't fix the damage he's doing. You definitely need to step in. KellyAna ( talk) 17:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you please not revert my edit of replacing archaic typewriter quotation marks with typographically correct quotation marks? ( Template:Cquote uses exactly the same quotation marks.) Thanks. -- KAMiKAZOW ( talk) 11:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

(X-Posted) The problem is that such things should not be changed just for the sake of changing them, which is what has happened here. Also note that there is nothing "archaic" about typewriter marks, and they are still very (very) widely used...almost any keyboard you come across will use them, and they certainly have a dominant market share in terms of use due to this. There is nothing inherently right or wrong about either format, and no preference in which should be used. I cannot predict if others will or will not say anything, but please don't be surprised if they do; I've certainly seen it before. — Huntster ( t • @ • c) 14:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Huntster, I saw that you removed the banner from the channel cat fish article. If you feel that it shouldn't belong on those then what are your thoughts on it being on the other articles of the items in List of Tennessee State Symbols. If you feel that it doesn't belong on those as well please let me know and I will be glad to remove them. I figured that maybe they had been looked over simply cause it was a "in front of your nose" sorta deal. Sorry for the over zealous trouble. -- Dan9186^{( T • E • C)} February 5, 2008 01:42 (UTC)

(X-Posted) I meant to toss you a message after I found that instance, but I was forcibly torn away from the computer by a rather bad phone call. I shouldn't have removed it in the first place without speaking with you, oops. In short, no, I do not believe that any state symbols should be placed under the project unless there are extenuating circumstances. As far as I can tell, ours would be the only project to do so, despite many items being symbols of other states. Further, looking at the two fish articles that were tagged ( channel catfish and largemouth bass), Tennessee isn't mentioned once in the articles. Think of it this way; our project should cover locations, objects, events and other topics that are uniquely Tennessee-related, have a strong bearing on the state, or have been strongly influenced by the state. For example, that is why I don't tag articles of football players who happened to play for University of Tennessee when I am reviewing newly created recommended articles. That's what I view these generic symbols as being: just tangentially related. If a symbol is uniquely associated with Tennessee, maybe that would be okay, but most things aside from seals and songs are found over a wide geographical area and are associated any number of states/countries. — Huntster ( t • @ • c) 12:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I will take care of any that haven't already been dealt with then. As for talking with me first, you are the more experienced one and a better decision maker than I am you keep doing what you're doing and I will help out where I can. Sorry for the trouble and inconvenience. -- Dan9186^{( T • E • C)} February 6, 2008 02:11 (UTC)

Huntster something that I would like your oppinion on, these following articles do mention Tennessee in the articles. I will leave them to you to remove the banner from the ones you deem needing it. Otherwise I have removed the banner from the other ones I had tagged.

• Tulip poplar
• Iris
• Passion flower
• Zebra Swallowtail Butterfly

-- Dan9186^{( T • E • C)} February 6, 2008 03:37 (UTC)

Civil Air Patrol has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

(X-Posted) Thanks so much Yinyang for the barnstar. I'm not much of a content contributor, but I do try to keep things looking clean and professional around the place. The article is about due for a rewrite, though I'll wait until well after series two concludes to do that. BTW, interesting username! — Huntster ( t • @ • c) 20:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem Huntster! I have seen your many contributions in the past to h2o and to the list of episodes, and by the way thanks for the compliment about my name ^^ . Yinyanglightningthrash ( talk) 20:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Together Again and If You Don't Mind are B-Sides of The Open Door. Here's a transcript of an Metal Edge interview. http://lnx.evanescencewebsite.com/PressArchive/news.php?id=130 And there's a scan too. http://lnx.evanescencewebsite.com/TheOpenDoor/albums/OPEN%20DOOR%20ERA/Magazines/Metal%20Edge/004.jpg Check the last lines of the first column and the second column. So I'm adding this to the The Open Door article. Armando.O ^{talk ● Ev ● 3K} 20:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Well done in finding and implementing that, thanks! — Huntster ( t • @ • c) 13:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

(X-Posted) An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Masdar City.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — Huntster ( t • @ • c) 21:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC) --— Huntster ( t • @ • c) 21:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed the cc tag and put the real tag in can the deletion notice be removed Trulystand700

Am I the only one who sees major problems in articles like All You Need Is Love, I Want To Hold Your Hand, and Come Together? I'm pretty sure it's coming from that template, but I have no idea why/where/how. I was just testing various things when you reverted my edit; perhaps you have a better idea of what the problem is (if there is one)? - Boss1000 ( talk) 22:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Hey, sorry for the revert and run, I was trying to fix at work and had to leave. The problem may be with the template, but I'm not so sure. I'm going to investigate, but I know the edit you made didn't change anything, which is why I reverted (better to attack from a preexisting angle rather than adding an unknown element). Hopefully I or someone else can quickly figure something out, or the template may have to be temporarily disabled. What I don't know is why it would all of a sudden stop working. — Huntster ( t • @ • c) 23:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It's completely fine; I didn't really know how to fix it, so I wasn't doing much, anyway. I did do a check, and the number of { and } are the same, though they could still be misplaced. Hope you find the solution! - Boss1000 ( talk) 02:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Note that there was no problem with the template. I never found out what was wrong, but I suspect a parser error caused the display problems. Everything was magically fixed within a couple of hours.

Hunster I've noticed today that the Memphis seal is tagged as needing a fair use rational or will be deleted. I am taking care of it but it rose some curiosity for me and I've checked a couple of other images and such that are in the projects image category and noticed that there are some that do not have a rational at all. I have time to correct a few and such but not all that I find. Might we wish to make a way to tag the ones that need rationals without tagging them for deletion so that we may go through over time and remedy the situation? If you would let me know your thoughts on this please, thanks. -- Dan9186^{( T • E • C)} February 20, 2008 16:25 (UTC)