| While I try to keep up to date with discussions I'm in, it's very possible for me to miss something. For this reason or any other, feel free to send me an extra poke via e-mail or AIM, for anything, trivial or important (or to just say hi). |
|
|
|
| Help track images! User:Splarka/watchimages.js Cut and paste the script into Special:Mypage/monobook.js, and you'll get a link in the toolbox (on the side bar) that lets you add all images included in an article to your watchlist. Changes to the image description page, new uploaded versions, and deletions will be displayed on your watchlist. |
I am User:Ned Scott on all Wikimedia Projects with the exception of wikinews:es:User:Ned Scott. I'm in my late-twenties and live in Arizona, USA. My main focus on Wikipedia is working on articles about entertainment and fiction (particularly anime and science fiction, which is probably not a big surprise), though I do enjoy working on much more than just those kinds of articles. Lately I've been more active in meta space than in article space, focusing on discussions and technical features such as templates. I'm also very interested in applying some of the methodology of Wikipedia to other wikis around the internet, which lead me to start up WikiProject Transwiki.
Unfortunately my personal time is being consumed by some other stuff lately, and I'm not nearly as active as I once was. Don't let that stop you from leaving me a message or asking for assistance if you feel I can be of some help! I will always be a Wikipedian, and look forward to always having at least some level of contribution to this great project. I also plan on getting more active again to at least finish a number of projects/ideas that I've either had or was involved in.
Useful links
|
List templates
Projects
Transwiki
- User:Ned Scott/transwiki - A rough rough draft and collection of thoughts for guidelines and advice about transwiking articles.
External contact project
Lets you find users who have external contact info. For use with WP:CATSCAN
|
Discussion tracking
- Delsort
- Delsort categories
- RfC/General notice
- XfDs
- Other
|
- RfCs - Art, architecture, literature and media
Talk:Blue (Bill Mack song)
| It is disputed whether this article should be titled Blue (LeAnn Rimes song) and concern the composition and LeAnn Rimes' single or whether it would be more appropriate for it to be titled Blue (LeAnn Rimes single) and only concern her single, or whether it would be better named Blue (Bill Mack song) and cover the composition and also covers of it (including LeAnn Rimes' single). I personally support the second option (and a separate article on the LeAnn Rimes cover), but as there is no clear consensus in prior discussion I am initiating a request for comment on the issue. --He to Hecuba (talk) 17:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard
| I would like to add an external link on the Foster and Partners wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foster_and_Partners).
That external link will be from the Foster and Partners personal profile on the Archello web site. ( An architectural platform for the built environment).
This will be the external link to add on the page:
I realize that is a minor change and I can added directly by my own, attaching a summary on it. However I'm not sure if that is enough, that's why I write this request to ask advise and avoid future requests.
Thanks for understanding.
Greetings.
Archello1 (talk) 11:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga
| I discussed about this before in this talk page. I was thinking whether or not Terminology sections, like the ones at Shakugan no Shana and Puella Magi Madoka Magica violate any Wikipedia policy, such as WP:FICT, WP:INDISCRIMINATE or WP:INUNIVERSE. While spinning them off from the Setting section allows the Setting section to not be too long, most of the terminology may only be of interest to fans of the series. While terminology sections can be useful for people who are fans, they may not be of interest to most people, and may even be considered as trivia (but I don't consider them as such, especially if the terms are integral to the plot). Instead, what could be done is move important content to the Setting section, or make the Terminology section a sub-heading of the Setting section. While I am generally leaning towards their removal, I do believe that their inclusion may hurt those who want to learn about the subject (although they can always look at the series' respective wikis). In a sense, these sections are similar to trivia sections: they should be avoided, any information could be integrated into the main text, and if they exist, they should only be temporary, but there is a difference: trivia sections here should be sourced, while terminology sections usually aren't. So should they be kept or not? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC) |
Talk:Drop C tuning
| there was discussion here before but not lots and now people are reverting on the page even though it was discussed. so we need outside opinions. should the list of 'artists who use drop c tuning' be in the article. if so should it only be ones with citations. Bouket (talk) 23:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC) |
Talk:Frasier Crane
| I have removed fictional biography about this character; I don't treat this article as if it should be a mere biography. Rather per WP:NOT, I have added creation and development and reception. Why have intricate details been added back? Now my head is spinning due to possibility that no one wants to watch Frasier the series, and I won't know which is relevant or irrelevant in terms of real-world perspective. As for fictional elements, unless relevant under real-world coverage, any intricate detail must be removed, including even his marriage to Lilith. (prev rev: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frasier_Crane&oldid=476053274) --George Ho (talk) 21:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC) |
Template talk:Music of Canada
Template talk:Intellectual property activism
| Some users have suggested (e.g. in this merger TfD) that this template be cleaned up, but no one as yet has stated the specifics. So let's have a discussion. What should be kept here, what should be removed. 178.37.150.228 (talk) 12:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC) |
Talk:Lisa Dewey
| This article was marked with a tag saying that the article doesn't meet quality standards, but there is no note on what needs to be changed. Any insights would be appreciated!
Prodoom (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas
| General notability guideline (GNG) is already mentioned, so I wonder if this Project could create its own Notability guideline based on commonly accepted guidelines, like GNG. If approved, should it mention real-world coverages, such as reception, analysis, and creative development? Would it affect such articles as Starr Manning and Aubrey Wentworth? I haven't created proposals yet, but, if many people disagree, then no proposals necessary, right? --George Ho (talk) 07:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC) |
Talk:Route 66 (TV series)
| This article is too messy for me to either remove or cite. Somehow, I believe in unsourced material because... I'm too inept to judge. --George Ho (talk) 07:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC) |
Talk:7 World Trade Center
Talk:Merriweather Post Pavilion
Request board
- This is a human-edited list of requests for comment. Click here to add a new request.
- RFCs - Wikipedia style, referencing, layout and WikiProjects
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers
| Should the proposal by DeFacto below, to avoid expressing any preference for the system of units to list first in non-scientific UK-related articles, be adopted? The "Manual of Style/Dates and numbers" currently indicates metric units are generally the main unit (that is, listed first, followed by a conversion if appropriate). Jc3s5h (talk) 18:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC) |
Request board
- This is a human-edited list of requests for comment. Click here to add a new request.
- RFCs - Wikipedia policies, guidelines and proposals
Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard
| With some regularly editors fail to notify other editors of ANI threads. This is not surprising given the wall o' text at the top of the page. I propose replacing the long ANI header with User:Nobody_Ent/sandbox4. Please consider it as a first draft prototype than a finished product. Nobody Ent 15:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy
Inspired in part by a discussion at WP:AN, which was in part inspired by a comment Newyorkbrad made here. I am proposing the following change to the blocking policy:
- "Most blocks are not controversial, but sometimes a block requires discussion in the general community to establish its appropriateness. In the case of community discussions regarding a block, the status quo is defined as "unblocked". For a practical purpose, that means that any block needs consensus to remain in place. Blocks that have community consensus may be enacted (if they have not been already) or retained (if the block preceded the discussion)."
The rationale behind this is simple: it removes the "first mover" advantage to blocking first and then starting a discussion. It shouldn't matter whether the discussion precedes the block or the block precedes the discussion, there needs to be a consensus that an editor needs to be blocked in order to be blocked. Blocking first and then seeking a discussion should not get a different result than starting the discussion before the block. We should be clear also that administrators who block someone and whose block is later undone by community consensus are not automatically at fault or wrong, but if the community is not behind a block, a person should not be blocked.
Feel free to discuss this below, make any suggested changes, etc. etc. In light of recent events, and in light of Newyorkbrads well thought out explanation of the conundrum, a change of this sort is really needed. Thoughts? Ideas? Support? Oppose? --Jayron32 01:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia talk:Article titles/RFC-Article title decision practice
When one evaluates titling decisions and especially contested titling decisions in our WP:RM process, it is very rare to find Recognizability or Naturalness invoked as a policy reason for a title change. It is also rare to find any holistic policy based discussions on titling decisions. These and other elements of our titling policy have been contentious over the last few months. So following the mantra that many of us subscribe to, that policy should follow and document practice wherever possible, I decided to think about this differently. What are the major choices the Wikipedia community of editors has made relative to article titles, and what were the alternatives to those choices that we’ve essentially rejected through policy statements and practice. If the community could agree on that, we might be able to agree on the most functional policy wording to convey that practice to the rest of the community, including new editors. So the following list displays in my view the choices the community has made and the alternatives we had. It is organized by priority. In other words, think of it as a policy ladder where a previous choice has precedence over and informs the following choices. I have bold faced the choices I think the community has made. I’ve intentionally left out neutrality as it requires some special thinking which can be addressed later. Also, this list does not ignore that fact/practice that individual title decisions are decided by WP:CONSENSUS, but instead conveys the policy elements/choices that such consensus is based on. This list is not intended to convey the detailed methodology by which each decision area is adjudicated or applied to individual title decisions.
- Sources (What is the source of the title wording?)
- As supported by reliable English-language secondary sources
-
- As contained in original research, primary sources, etc.
- Pure fantasy, made up names, fanciful constructions, et. al.
- Type of name (names of most things have alternatives and those alternatives can be characterized as follows)
- Official names (names issued by official organizations, entities, etc. these might be scientific names, legal names (people and entities), government names, etc.) – Organization X is the official name keeper and it determines that XXXXXX is the official name (most restrictive and least encyclopedic).
- Authoritative names/specialist names (names that an authority on a subject uses; authoritative/specialist names are usually found in sources that are scholarly, or at least come out of some type of structured, disciplined process) – John Doe is the authority on subject XXXXXXX and says XXXXXXX is the name used for this subject. An authoritative name may be an official name, but an official name is not necessarily the authoritative name (less restrictive and more encyclopedic than official names).
- Common names (names that are most widely used by all types of sources—official, unofficial, authoritative/specialist and general media) – A common name may indeed be official or authoritative, but it is the commonness that is the important characteristic (least restrictive and the most encyclopedic for a generalist encyclopedia).
- Descriptive names can also be constructed from terms that reflect common usage in reliable sources.
- Ambiguity (names may or may not have some level of ambiguity)
- Uniqueness (Demanded by the Wiki software.)
- Little or no ambiguity (Titles require enough detail to leave no doubt as to what the subject of the article is about. The more articles that exist with a related title, the most disambiguation information must be added to the title to ensure no ambiguity between articles exists.) This represents the idea of detailed disambiguation.
- Moderate ambiguity (Titles should contain sufficient detail to allow readers to make informed navigational and search decisions, but without ensuring that every navigational or search decision is unambiguous.) This represents our current practice of reasonable levels of disambiguation.
- High levels of ambiguity (Titles require only sufficient differentiation to make them unique, as long as titles are unique, it doesn’t matter whether or not there is serious ambiguity of titles among a bunch of related articles.) This represents the idea of no unnecessary disambiguation. It discourages even moderate disambiguation if a more concise alternative exists.
- Style (What is the visual form that we like to see in our titles?)
- Rigid consistency – All titles must conform to rigid style standards to include parts of speech, capitalization, punctuation, abbreviation, structure etc.
- Moderate consistency – Basic style standards are delineated through MOS and naming conventions and should guide the visual form of our titles (literally and comparatively), but not in a rigid, one size fits all way.
- No consistency – Basic style standards are irrelevant, anything goes.
So there is only one question that I seek an answer from the rest of the community. Does this list accurately reflect the choices we’ve made as a community and community practice regarding titles? Whether editors individually agree with these choices is not the question. Please indicate your view in only one of the sections below. Discussion or challenges to an individual editor's position on this is not required or relevant to the outcome and should be avoided. I encourage all editors who have created articles or participated in article title decisions to participate in this RFC. Your individual view of WP practice is important. --Mike Cline (talk) 19:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia talk:Copyrights
| Due to bot issues this in not currently showing as an open RfC. However while we await legal input from the foundation it should remain open. I've queried the bots action with it's owner and started a section below #RfC tag. Dpmuk (talk) 19:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Non-free content
| NFCC states as policy (#9: "Restrictions on location") that display of non-free images isn't allowed on any page on Wikipedia other than mainspace articles and a few administrative exemptions. It doesn't say how they should be handled. Sometimes such revisions should be deleted or removed from public view. But against that, there is probably a practical and reasonable limit, we don't want to encourage well-meaning but disruptive rampant ransacking of the entirety of Wikipedia page history looking for and deleting any non-content revisions displaying a non-free image. (At least, not without consensus).
Criteria for deletion tools is being discussed elsewhere and clarity at NFCC would help - the issue is best resolved by consensus on best practice of NFCC handling. Sometimes revisions displaying NF content may need to be deleted and not just edited out - but when? What criteria? How narrow?
WP:NFCC is mute. It just says it's not allowed, but not whether, when or how they may be removed if they happen. The policy doesn't say whether removing a displayed free image (by editing the page) is usually sufficient or if it must also be removed from history like any copyvio. If the line isn't at either extreme but somewhere in-between, or specific circumstances may affect the decision, then there is no guidance on best practice.
This RFC is to ask users interested in NFCC to help draw up brief guidance in WP:NFCC for appropriate handling/removal of non-free images that breach policy #9:
- When is editing to remove the displayed image sufficient? When is deletion appropriate (or not)?
- Are non-free images in page history ok or should they be deleted sometimes? When if ever would it be appropriate (or not) to selectively delete a revision from page history that breaches NFCC restrictions on display? (they can't be removed by editing)
FT2 (Talk
|
Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion
Wikipedia talk:No original research
| WP allows primary sources to support isolated facts. Comment is requested here upon extending WP:V and WP:Primary to explicitly allow entire articles based upon primary sources, provided these articles contain no synthesis, analysis, or interpretation of the original sources. A summary of a recent discussion follows this RfC at Wikipedia talk:No original research.
Brews ohare (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas
| General notability guideline (GNG) is already mentioned, so I wonder if this Project could create its own Notability guideline based on commonly accepted guidelines, like GNG. If approved, should it mention real-world coverages, such as reception, analysis, and creative development? Would it affect such articles as Starr Manning and Aubrey Wentworth? I haven't created proposals yet, but, if many people disagree, then no proposals necessary, right? --George Ho (talk) 07:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC) |
Template talk:Dead end
| I have a question based on conversations I've had today here and here about this template. According to Wikipedia:Dead-end pages, dead-end pages are defined as those that have "no internal links to other Wikipedia articles." However, since this template states "This article needs more links to other articles" and the template documentation states "This tag can be used to clarify a {{wikify}} request that was placed primarily to generate additional internal links, especially where there are few or no internal links." it seems the instructions state it is appropriate to use this template on articles that have one or more wikilinks. What is the consensus for using this template? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 03:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC) |
Template talk:Under discussion
Template talk:Expand language
Wikipedia talk:User pages
| "New messages" banner hoaxes simulate the MediaWiki interface. Many direct readers to unexpected locations such as the practical joke article and non-Wikipedia websites.
Proposed: "New messages" banner hoaxes in the user and user talk namespaces are prohibited.
Note: This proposal covers only banners that in both wording and color closely resemble the one listed at Wikipedia:User pages#User talk notification. Joke banners that do not mislead editors into believing they have new messages are not included in this proposal.
- Notifications
Cunard (talk) 05:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
|
