AussieLegend (talk | contribs) |
Flyer22 Frozen (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 147: | Line 147: | ||
Hey all, just a heads-up that I've had some run-ins with a now indeffed user, {{noping|Avenger2015}} who keeps adding unsourced and redundant cast information in articles typically related to children's television. Typically if a main article has a list of characters, or even a unique LoC article, the user will (usually over the course of one or two dozen consecutive edits) add a litany of names/roles. The lists are indiscriminate and often include presumably non-notable roles like Raccoon #4 or Man #2. So if you see cast lists pop up, you might want to take a look to see if there is already a character list. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Randy_Cunningham%3A_9th_Grade_Ninja&diff=607025436&oldid=605844260 Here are 23 sample edits] from Avenger2015. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Randy_Cunningham%3A_9th_Grade_Ninja&diff=627463138&oldid=621252726 16 edits from IP 98.24.156.14] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scooby-Doo%21_Mystery_Incorporated&diff=629329857&oldid=628977765 17 edits] from new user Speedball1988, whom I suspect of being a sock of Avenger. The new user repeats the same edit summary in each of his edit, which is a new affect. The user almost never speaks. The first time Avenger spoke was after his third trip to ANI. My hypothesis is that this is another incarnation of [[Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Voice Cast Vandal]]. If you notice any new socks, the SPI report is at: [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Avenger2015]]. Danke, [[User:Cyphoidbomb|Cyphoidbomb]] ([[User talk:Cyphoidbomb|talk]]) 15:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC) |
Hey all, just a heads-up that I've had some run-ins with a now indeffed user, {{noping|Avenger2015}} who keeps adding unsourced and redundant cast information in articles typically related to children's television. Typically if a main article has a list of characters, or even a unique LoC article, the user will (usually over the course of one or two dozen consecutive edits) add a litany of names/roles. The lists are indiscriminate and often include presumably non-notable roles like Raccoon #4 or Man #2. So if you see cast lists pop up, you might want to take a look to see if there is already a character list. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Randy_Cunningham%3A_9th_Grade_Ninja&diff=607025436&oldid=605844260 Here are 23 sample edits] from Avenger2015. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Randy_Cunningham%3A_9th_Grade_Ninja&diff=627463138&oldid=621252726 16 edits from IP 98.24.156.14] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scooby-Doo%21_Mystery_Incorporated&diff=629329857&oldid=628977765 17 edits] from new user Speedball1988, whom I suspect of being a sock of Avenger. The new user repeats the same edit summary in each of his edit, which is a new affect. The user almost never speaks. The first time Avenger spoke was after his third trip to ANI. My hypothesis is that this is another incarnation of [[Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Voice Cast Vandal]]. If you notice any new socks, the SPI report is at: [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Avenger2015]]. Danke, [[User:Cyphoidbomb|Cyphoidbomb]] ([[User talk:Cyphoidbomb|talk]]) 15:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC) |
||
:Noted. Thanks for the heads-up. --[[User:AussieLegend|'''<span style="color:green;">Aussie</span><span style="color:gold;">Legend</span>''']] ([[User talk:AussieLegend#top|<big>✉</big>]]) 16:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC) |
:Noted. Thanks for the heads-up. --[[User:AussieLegend|'''<span style="color:green;">Aussie</span><span style="color:gold;">Legend</span>''']] ([[User talk:AussieLegend#top|<big>✉</big>]]) 16:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC) |
||
== [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FOX animated universe]] == |
|||
Some of you might be interested in weighing in on [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FOX animated universe]]. [[User:Flyer22|Flyer22]] ([[User talk:Flyer22|talk]]) 06:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 06:51, 14 October 2014
Television Project‑class | |||||||
|
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used
This article may have issues. I would hope interested contributors to fix them. --George Ho (talk) 04:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Featured article review/Yes Minister/archive1 is created. --George Ho (talk) 22:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Boldface in character lists
Yo, yo! Anybody have any thoughts about the use of boldface in character lists?
- Dee Shivers (voiced by Ken Fernroot) is a fictional character made up for the purpose of this example.
There's nothing in MOS:TV to support the use of boldface in this way. I think the bullet points are sufficient to differentiate one character from another, but these sorts of character lists are prolific, and of course MOS:BOLD seems to discourage this sort of usage. Anyone have any thoughts? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- MOS:BOLD seems to argues against it although it seems to be common usage somewhat supported by a similar usage in the MOS of Entries in description and the example given there at Glossary of the American trucking industry. The character entries are effectively subheaders with the subheader portion being the character name. Possibly should use:
- Dee Shivers
- (voiced by Ken Fernroot) is a fictional character made up for the purpose of this example.
Coded as: ;{{Visible anchor|Dee Shivers}}:(voiced by Ken Fernroot) is a fictional character made up for the purpose of this example.
To match the definition list example. With the ";" used for a non-TOC header. This would conform to the MOS. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:09, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- (ec):As pointed out above WP:CASTLIST says "... per Wikipedia's Manual of Style on boldface, please limit boldface to table headers and captions. Actors and roles should not be bolded." An editor recently tried to argue on my talk page that MOS:BOLD permits bolding in definition lists but, as I pointed out there, the example used by MOS:BOLD of the appropriate use is completely different to the example that you've given. While MOS:BOLD does recommend the method suggested by Geraldo Perez, MOS:ACCESS says "Do not make pseudo-headings using bold or semicolon markup. Screen readers and other machines can only use correctly formatted headings. If you want to reduce the size of the table of contents (TOC), use {{TOC limit}} instead." --AussieLegend (✉) 19:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
So I remember seeing this discussion, but forgot where it was. I recently edited the MOS to include the line from WP:FILMCAST regarding this. While I do believe Geraldo's method is a valid one, I feel that character names (or actor names) should not be bolded, either conventionally or with the ';'. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Cast tables
There is a trend at the moment to replace cast lists in series articles with tables, eliminating all prose in the process. It seems that 99% of these are being added by IPs with little or no edit history.This is fairly typical and, given the editors' history, is rather peculiar. I've been checking WHOIS but finding that IPs don't geolocate to the same areas. Does anyone know what has caused this trend? --AussieLegend (✉) 05:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- I think I run in different circles; I haven't yet seen this as a trend. Using the new beta search feature, I found a few spots on Wikipedia where this sort of content exists: this user's sandbox, Grange Hill (series 12),Grange Hill (series 7) (the Grange Hill stuff seems recently created and submitted by a single purpose account). A 2013 version of NYPD Blue has something similar, although it looks like officer ranks are presented instead of acting "position" or role. Also CSI: Cyber, and this page from 2007 has a similar markup, as does this article from 2010. In this edit from May 2014, we can see an Oldham UK IP adding a table to CSI: Cyber. What does it all mean? Fuck if I know! There are a lot more examples of this than I bothered to paste. Do we hate the grid? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Just had this issue over at Arrow (TV series). Don't know what started it, but they (IPs) somehow believe the tables are better. (Look at the article history for their "claims".) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Personally, I don't particularly care for those types of tables in any page. To me, they are merely a way of trying to organize the least useful information (e.g., number of episode appearances, when they were or were not recurring guests). I have seen it more and more than I had before. They are also reminiscent of a period of time when people were creating mini-articles for characters within pages, including character infoboxes. If I had to take a guess, it's because there are IPs who are frequenting certain pages where the community of editors have decided to use that approach (I mean, other than my personal distaste for them, there isn't anything regulating against it), and then they are wanting to be productive to other pages and understand how to copy and paste code. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Just had this issue over at Arrow (TV series). Don't know what started it, but they (IPs) somehow believe the tables are better. (Look at the article history for their "claims".) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
There is an RfC concerning whether it is appropriate to use pronouns such as "he", "she", or "who" when referring to fictional characters in out-of-universe portions of articles. The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#RFC: Are fictional characters people or objects? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Future episodes editnotice
Are people aware Template:Future episodes editnotice exist? It doesn't get as much use as I would expect. 117Avenue (talk) 03:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Probably because it needs to be added to articles by a template editor, and that's only when all hope is lost and that is a last alternative to get the page under control. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:11, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- I think admins can add these to edit pages too. See, now if you guys got behind me when I was nominated for adminship, I'd have taken care of this. But nooooo... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
RfC: Is WatchersOnTheWall.com an expert SPS?
There is an RfC at Game of Thrones (season 5) regarding whether the site WatchersOnTheWall.com meets the criteria for an expert self-published source (and is therefore suitable for use on Wikipedia). Participation is welcome. Piandme (talk) 01:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Game of Thrones and chapter-to-episode statements
RfC: Should the article state which chapters appear in the episode?
This RfC is specifically about one episode, "Oathkeeper," but it is likely to affect all Game of Thrones episode articles. Specifically, should the episodes contain a line such as, "This episode was based on [specific chapters] of [specific book(s)]"? Right now, some episode articles have lines like this and some don't, always in the Writing section. Here's an example: [3] So far, the first few respondents have outlined the reasons for and against inclusion pretty well, but we need more voices. Participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
"Outro"
The usage of Outro is under discussion, see talk:outro -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 07:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Consensus required
My purpose for reporting this issue here is to get a consensus. User:सुनील मलेठिया (For your convenience I would like to inform you that this user users the Devanagari script for his username. If to write it in English/the Roman script then it will be - Sunil Malethia. This user's userpage is blank but you can visit his talk page) is constantly:
- De-italicising the television show names in Template:Star Plus Shows and Template:Life OK Programmes. However as per WP:ITAL we must "use italics for the titles of works of literature and art, such as books, pamphlets, films (including short films), television series, named exhibitions, computer and video games (but not other software), music albums, and paintings".
- Is also removing the space between two consecutive names in the list, making the source cumbersome while editing.
- Is classifying part of the template as per format (such as reality) and partof them as per genre (such as drama). Note - I had classified them as soap opera, anthology series and reality show.
What did I do? - I notified the user in his talk page and even started a discussion in the respective talk pages of the templates (here and here). I am refraining from using rollback, as I am afraid that it may lead to an edit war.
What is सुनील मलेठिया doing? - The user is not responding and have undone all my edits to the templates.
My last edits to the templates and those of सुनील मलेठिया - This was the last edit I made to Template:Life OK Programmes - here and this is his last edit (current revision) to the same template - here. This was my last edit to Template:Star Plus Shows - here and this is his (current revision) - here.
My purpose for reporting this issue here - To get a consensus regarding this issue.
Thank you. --Tamravidhir (talk) 12:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Quick answer - You're correct. He is not. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Amount of episodes required before split into episode list?
How many episodes does a series need to have before an episode list can be split into its own page? I've had the list of SheZow episodes episodes merged into the main article by CAWylie a while ago on the grounds that the main article was too short, but in my opinion this only makes it look worse. It lists 52 segments (of 26 episodes) individually, which makes for quite a long list. Not to mention we have featured episode lists like the list of Awake episodes which only consists of a season of twelve episodes. What's the limit here? 23W (talk · stalk) 01:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think there's anything codified, nor do I think there's been a consensus discussion I can point to. My personal take is that anything more than a season's worth should be broken off, anything a season or less can be integrated into the main article. But that's just my three cents. — fourthords | =Λ= | 01:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- The SheZow segments can be combined into episodes with "SegmentA/ SegmentB" titles, as both were aired as part of the same episode. If episode summaries are planned for each segment, then consider splitting them off again. If they're left to be a list, then it might be okay to keep in the main article. Splitting by season is usually for 80+ episodes per MOS:TV -AngusWOOF (talk) 01:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- I cannot speak for what some editors have done in other pages, but it's a combination of things. WP:MOSTV doesn't generally say when to create a LoE page, but it does address breaking those out further. You should generally follow WP:SIZE. As there is no point in splitting a table of episodes if the main page is not large enough to justify the split in the first place. Otherwise, you're merely gutting one partially fleshed out article and splitting it into 2 smaller articles. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- SheZow topic six months ago. If you look at the size of Awake's main article vs. SheZow's, you will see why I merged it back. If Awake's episode list page was just a list of titles, I would merge it, too. — Wyliepedia 01:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- I cannot speak for what some editors have done in other pages, but it's a combination of things. WP:MOSTV doesn't generally say when to create a LoE page, but it does address breaking those out further. You should generally follow WP:SIZE. As there is no point in splitting a table of episodes if the main page is not large enough to justify the split in the first place. Otherwise, you're merely gutting one partially fleshed out article and splitting it into 2 smaller articles. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Comment on the WikiProject X proposal
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
MSN TV has a new design
FYI to all: MSN has a new design, and existing references like http://tv.msn.com/tv/series-episodes/nicky-ricky-dicky-and-dawn/?ipp=40 at Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn may not work any longer. Gaak! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- Try http://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/series/nicky-ricky-dicky-and-dawn/seasons-episodes/BBuYtC instead. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks GP. I'm not so much concerned about one reference though, rather how we now have numerous articles with non-functional references. Also, a lot of info seems to be missing from the new site. Note that there's only one episode at NRD&D when there used to be 4. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- Numerous is an understatement. I just found at least 500 broken links. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- I figured it wuz gonna be bad. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- Numerous is an understatement. I just found at least 500 broken links. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks GP. I'm not so much concerned about one reference though, rather how we now have numerous articles with non-functional references. Also, a lot of info seems to be missing from the new site. Note that there's only one episode at NRD&D when there used to be 4. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Order of "Starring" in the TV Infobox when new cast members are added.
Could I get a few opinions about the order of the stars in TV series infobox at Talk:Person_of_Interest_(TV_series)#Starring_order_in_Infobox. The statement that: "Cast are listed in original credit order followed by order in which new cast joined the show" seems clear to me, but one editor doesn't want to add the new people at the end. I think the policy should be adhered to for consistency unless there is justification and a consensus to change.AbramTerger (talk) 14:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- I don't know what's going on at that article but neither the infobox or the cast section is organised per the MOS or the instructions for {{Infobox television}}. I've made appropriate comment in the discussion. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Appropriate category?
I recently created Category:Television episodes in multiple parts for... episodes that are in multiple parts, but I'm not sure if this was appropriate or not anymore. Would it be helpful to anyone to have this? 23W (talk · stalk · pend) 00:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Page move request is still ongoing. If you like, you can relist the discussion; see WP:RM#Relisting for instructions. --George Ho (talk) 01:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Page move proposal is discussed; join in. --George Ho (talk) 02:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Free money!
No, not really. There is a content dispute at List of The Big Bang Theory characters. Unfortunately, the page doesn't seem to have a lot of active editors so I'm seeking wider input. The relevant discussion is at Talk:List of The Big Bang Theory characters#Content dispute - October 2014. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:58, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Please don't get in the habit of crying wolf on talk pages. Also, just contacting Talk:The Big Bang Theory might have been sufficient or that and a normal notice. In the last 90 days, the readership has been over 7.5 times higher for the main article. I would bet that the number of watchers and active editors has a similare multiple.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- just checked to see that the watcher ratio is 5.1:1 (610:120).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Crying wolf? Huh? Despite the number of watchers and editors, discussions often don't attract participants, which is why posting in more than one place is the norm. We should always try to involve as many members of the community as possible and there are experienced editors who watch this page but not every TV article. Quoting ratios and other statistics is all well and good but you need to be practical. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Posting here is not so bad, but there is no reason to title the section "Free money!".--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- I was trying for a little humour. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- How about trying for a little humility? (--like the phrase "I'm sorry" or "Pardon me".) Also, if I might add, it's preferable (to me anyway) not to make a whole paragraph in small type. It makes it too hard to read. Just a little constructive criticism. --Musdan77 (talk) 19:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- Where is the paragraph in small type? Are you sure your browser settings are correct? --AussieLegend (✉) 09:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- It's the quoted paragraph that comes after "The discussion copied from FleetCommand's talk page follows:". Not that it's wrong; I was just letting you know that it's harder to read for some people. --Musdan77 (talk) 16:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- You can blame another editor for that. She decided it should be formatted that way.[4] That said, it looks fine to me. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- It's the quoted paragraph that comes after "The discussion copied from FleetCommand's talk page follows:". Not that it's wrong; I was just letting you know that it's harder to read for some people. --Musdan77 (talk) 16:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- Where is the paragraph in small type? Are you sure your browser settings are correct? --AussieLegend (✉) 09:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- How about trying for a little humility? (--like the phrase "I'm sorry" or "Pardon me".) Also, if I might add, it's preferable (to me anyway) not to make a whole paragraph in small type. It makes it too hard to read. Just a little constructive criticism. --Musdan77 (talk) 19:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- I was trying for a little humour. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- Posting here is not so bad, but there is no reason to title the section "Free money!".--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Crying wolf? Huh? Despite the number of watchers and editors, discussions often don't attract participants, which is why posting in more than one place is the norm. We should always try to involve as many members of the community as possible and there are experienced editors who watch this page but not every TV article. Quoting ratios and other statistics is all well and good but you need to be practical. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- just checked to see that the watcher ratio is 5.1:1 (610:120).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Redundant cast list vandal
Hey all, just a heads-up that I've had some run-ins with a now indeffed user, Avenger2015 who keeps adding unsourced and redundant cast information in articles typically related to children's television. Typically if a main article has a list of characters, or even a unique LoC article, the user will (usually over the course of one or two dozen consecutive edits) add a litany of names/roles. The lists are indiscriminate and often include presumably non-notable roles like Raccoon #4 or Man #2. So if you see cast lists pop up, you might want to take a look to see if there is already a character list. Here are 23 sample edits from Avenger2015. 16 edits from IP 98.24.156.14 and 17 edits from new user Speedball1988, whom I suspect of being a sock of Avenger. The new user repeats the same edit summary in each of his edit, which is a new affect. The user almost never speaks. The first time Avenger spoke was after his third trip to ANI. My hypothesis is that this is another incarnation of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Voice Cast Vandal. If you notice any new socks, the SPI report is at: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Avenger2015. Danke, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- Noted. Thanks for the heads-up. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Some of you might be interested in weighing in on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FOX animated universe. Flyer22 (talk) 06:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)