User talk:AussieLegend

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Home   Talk   Contributions   Projects   Miscellaneous
  Userboxes   Cheatsheet   Vandals, bad
sources etc
  TV programs    
Crystal Clear app clock.svg It is approximately 11:44 PM where this user lives. (Raymond Terrace)

List of The Big Bang Theory characters[edit]

Greetings. There are a couple of things about your edits that I think I should bring to your talk page rather than the article talk page.

First, WP:BOLD? Are you sure? Did you mean WP:BOLDFACE? In any case, I don't see how it can be construed as forbidding boldface in list item head phrase. IMHO, it is just good sense.

Second, you said "we list characters by their name as credited". A link to the policy is appreciated.

Third, have you studied WP:HONORIFIC?

Last, why aren't you an admin? Face-wink.svg

Cheers. Fleet Command (talk) 06:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Be careful, Aussie. Last time someone asked me why I wasn't an admin, I was (deservingly) humiliated by the entire Wikipedia community. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
That is supposed to be a mood-changer question. I don't mind if it is ignored. Fleet Command (talk) 07:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I meant MOS:BOLD. That section of the article is filled with people who probablay shouldn't be listed. Not all characters need to be listed. If we eliminated those who shouldn't be there, bolding wouldn't be a problem. Listing characters by credited name is something that is "just done", the way many things are done. It's a general, but not formal, consensus rooted in consistency with WP:COMMONNAME. If you care to open a discussion at WT:TV, I'd be surprised if you couldn't get a formal consensus. Yes, I've studied WP:HONORIFIC, but remember we're talking about fictional characters here, and fiction doesn't, and sometimes can't, follow real-world paradigms. The fact that Leonard's mother is a doctor is something that we are reminded about pretty much every time she appears. Note that WP:HONORIFIC says "in general". It does not mandate that honorifics aren't used because there are times when use of an honorific is helpful or otherwise justified. Why aren't I an admin? I was asked last year. Unfortunately, family issues prevented me going to RfA then and every time I think I'm ready, something else seems to come up. --AussieLegend () 10:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I am not saying you are wrong or anything but first, I am going to have to ask you for a source regarding said credits. Show itself only lists guests' names; it credit's Leonard's mother only as Beverly (contrary to your assertion). However, we have WP:MOS, which explicitly states that the article must maintain internal consistency regarding optional styles. If the credit listings itself does not have a consistent listing style, so help me, it goes against our policy. I don't have any strong feelings about honorifics here but just so you know, every time I see her, I am, above all else, reminded of her being obnoxious and incapable understanding the most basic concepts of life. Her being a doctor does not have sufficient due weight here.
I am all for removing characters lacking due weight. (I see no encyclopedic value in listing a character only because she once shouted "Security!" in the whole series.) But due weight has nothing to do with the optional style of a definition list. A definition list can be bulleted, flat or cascading (using ; and :). The article had chosen flat and per MOS:STABILITY, we must stick to it. All you did was to dismantle the list format. To top it off, MOS:BOLD (or WP:BOLDFACE or whatever...) actually supports doing so.
Fleet Command (talk) 22:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
If you want a good source for character names, try any one of the press releases. The Futon Critic reproduces these for each episode.[1] Note that the release linked to, which I picked at random, actually credits Leonard's mother's full name. The issue of bolding was brought up recently at WT:TV. Note that discussion refers to both MOS:BOLD and WP:CASTLIST, the latter explicitly stating that "actors and roles should not be bolded". --AussieLegend () 14:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I am looking at your source; no Dr. or Doctor. Also the main characters in the article don't correspond to this source. It says "Leonard", "Sheldon", etc. And still, it does not resolve the consistency issue; it makes it worse. Maybe I'll do a bold edit and then you can compare and decide.
The discussion about Hawak Kamay is not discussing consequential conversion of a flat definition list to flat paragraphs. That list already has bullets and the boldface text consisted of almost 50% of the text. It was plain gross. I'd have removed it anyway. In our list, the boldface formatting established the existence of a definition list and consisted of only the name portion (a couple of words) at the beginning of each paragraphs. I feel our time is better spent discussing which character lacks due weight for inclusion.
Fleet Command (talk) 03:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
When determining how to treat fictional characters, the MOS can't preempt every situation, so we have to use common sense when deciding how to list them. As far as The Big Bang Theory is concerned, there's a long-standing agreement to list the main characters (which includes Leslie Winkle as she was in the series from the first season) with their last names, in line with the way we treat real people. This seems only reasonable since their last names have been used so very many times in the series. Bernadette is an exception, as Rostenkowski has been used very rarely and Rostenkowski-Wolowitz was used just once, almost in passing. Regardless of your opinion on what the Hawak Kamay was discussing, MOS:BOLD and WP:CASTLIST still apply to the Big Bang Theory character article. --AussieLegend () 04:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree right until the last sentence which contradicted everything you said about common sense. Plus, MOS:BOLD says boldface for definition lists is okay. so, your last sentence not only invalidated everything you made so far, but now makes me think you are really scatterbrained. (Oh, well, I guess now I know why you are not an admin.) You send way too many mixed messages.
Well, I guess I should just use my retirement benefit and not to worry about this whole mess. Whatever. Cheers. Fleet Command (talk) 05:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Pretty sure you don't get to come out of retirement to slap other users with incivil zingers like this. I know Aussie doesn't need a defense team, but this shit popped up in my watchlist and it is irritating as fuck to read. Whether you continue this discussion or abandon it, please do try to be classy, FleetCommand. And for the record, adminship isn't a reward, it's yet another volunteer position that comes with more buttons, and not everybody wants that. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
The more uncivil course of action would have been to leave it uncommented; it'll blindside him in an RfA, where irrelevant people dig dirt on the candidate. Civility is far more sophisticated than just an automated word filter. I didn't even revert him, although per WP:BRD, I could. FYI, "retirement" is not "death"; it marks a voluntary reduction in my editing pattern, scope and extent. The handling admin didn't have a problem with this; so, I don't think I'd care if you do. Fleet Command (talk) 05:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Two wrongs don't make a right. The simple fact is that you should not have been uncivil in the first place. You are well aware of that requirement. --AussieLegend () 05:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I get that people have trouble apologizing to others, but making up crap like the I-was-incivil-for-your-own-good argument is sub-adult. Ras.gif Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Did you bother to check the example used by MOS:BOLD? Compare that to the revision of List of The Big Bang Theory characters that incorporated the bold. They're completely different types of lists. The bolding used in List of The Big Bang Theory characters was inappropriate and not supported by WP:CASTLIST, so regardless of your interpretation (or misinterpretation) of MOS:BOLD, it shouldn't have been bolded. It's really that simple. --AussieLegend () 09:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
As a matter of fact I did. Their only difference is the presence of a line break between head phrase and description. (The technicality behind implementing this difference is not really the concern, though you might want to read the fineprint in H:DL.) The former is called an indented definition list. The latter is called a flat definition list. Even if you considered a flat definition list inappropriate, the more appropriate course of action was to convert it to an indented list. Fleet Command (talk) 05:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
The difference between the two lists is not as simple as you seem to think. It uses a semi-colon to form a pseudo-heading, which MOS:ACCESS warns should not be done.[2] The resolution that MOS:ACCESS suggests, using {{TOC limit}} is not appropriate as it would suppress the main character names. Not using TOC limit would result in an excessively long TOC. An indented list simply is not appropriate for the minor characters or notable guests sections. --AussieLegend () 09:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
FC, I was just being impish. :) Aussie, I think you'd make for a fine admin should you ever endure your RfA. From my failure I learned that my AfD nominations and votes became a big deal to the community--I hadn't performed enough WP:BEFORE due diligence. I also haven't created much content, which put off many. I'll shut up now coz it ain't about me. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
As someone at your RfA said, if they don't get you for one thing, they'll get you for another. I haven't participated in a lot of RfAs and I have 30,000 semi-automated edits (I use Twinkle) - I've seen both of those as issues people have raised at RfAs. Several people I trust actually warned me away from RfA. --AussieLegend () 17:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
One thing that was especially shitty, is that as I was getting hammered by admins and other users who had never worked with me, my instinct was to reach out to some of the people I'd been working with constructively, but then you start worrying about forum shopping and other nonsense. It seems to me that adminship is about trust, and that should be it. In my RfA you see people saying basically, "well he was on the wrong side of a buncha AfD nominations, so clearly he's going to continue that trend like an asshole instead of learning from his mistakes." That demonstrates clear lack of trust based on an irrational expectation. Come to think of it, maybe responding to AfD questions with shortcuts is the best way to go! "I don't have confidence in his ability to wield the mop." "Whoops, sorry pal, that's WP:SOAPBOXING based on WP:CRYSTAL." Zing! "The new King of Wikipedia has been crowned!" Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Green Rain[edit]

Hi AussieLegend (yet again)

Regarding the green colour of rain, I personally believe for all Australian articles they should be green, on the basis that it looks better and to better distinguish the Aussie articles. I am yet trying to find your 'consensus' on the green rain colour, but I have found an edit of you adding the green colour to the Sydney weatherbox

anyway, cheers and have a good day/evening!

Luxure (talk) 07:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

That was a good faith restoration. Bidgee added the colour here and it was deleted in the next edit.[3] Green seems an unnatural colour for rain. I associate green with trees, blue with water etc. Hail laden clouds have a green tinge, but hail isn't liquid form. --AussieLegend () 09:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
But does not it look better than the blue? And it also contrasts to the record low temperature which often approaches the blue territory. Luxure (talk) 09:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Looking at the record lows in Newcastle, Sydney, Melbourne and Hobart I don't see any conflict with blue for rain and no, I really don't think it looks better.--AussieLegend () 10:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

still prefer the greenrain ....

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, AussieLegend. You have new messages at Luxure's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Lost Girl // Plot section[edit]

Thanks for finally! removing the Season 5 sub-section. I would have done it long ago but left it to your discretion as the Admin. Forewarned is forearmed: anons who don't bother to look at the entirety of the article and see that a Season 5 section exists under *Production and Development* will add the sub-section back into the Plot area. It will be one mole after another that will need to be wacked until we know the storyline of Season 5. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 07:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)