User talk:Tbrittreid/Archive/2008/February

Barnstar!

		The Original Barnstar
		For skilled, dilligent, and valuable contributions to various animation-related articles, I hereby award you The Original Barnstar. Your work does not go unappreciated! :) — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 03:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! You've made some excellent contributions to many articles, and you're particularly skillful at helping me settle some disputes. I'd say you deserved it! :-) — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 21:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW, have you ever considered becoming a member of the American Animation Wikiproject? I'm sure you'd be a big help to the project. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 21:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The American Animation WikiProject has been getting a much-needed boost the last several days, thanks to the recent joining of quite a few new members and a steady increase of the project's coverage. If you still wish to join, all you have to do is click here and sign your name under "Active", "Inactive", or "Supporter", and you're in! Regards, Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 02:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for joining the Animation Wikiproject as a supporter! The project is really starting to grow! Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 01:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Charlie Dog abruptly merged with Porky Pig

MrJanitor1 just merged the Charlie Dog article with the Porky Pig article, without providing any reason whatsoever on the talk page or in his edit summaries. I notified him of this, and informed the user that it would probably be best to ask for consensus before making such a move. I then went ahead and reverted most of the edits pertaining to this redirect, but found myself hitting the wall when trying to restore the Charlie Dog page. D'you think you could help me out with this? Thanks! — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 22:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and added the related IMDb external link to the Gold Diggers of '49 article. I'm not sure exactly what caused you to encounter such a problem, since when I typed the full title into the "go" box and pressed "Enter", I was taken straight to that page. I decided to make said EL a bare-boned link, instead of using the standard IMDb profile template. Hope that helps. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 22:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It took the use of some major brain cells, but I think I've been able to restore the Charlie Dog article (by way of copying the original text from the Porky Pig article's history and then pasting it back on the Charlie Dog page). It looks like that worked. Thanks, anyway, and good luck with the rest of the IMDb links. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 22:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Capitalization of dinosaur names in the Son of Kong article

In the Son of Kong article you constantly revert my edits arguing that the capitalization of the dinosaur names is inapproriate. That's not true! Have a look at some articles about particular dinosaurs (in our case Styracosaurus and Brontosaurus, the latter actually being Apatosaurus). There you'll see that the dinosaur genera are capitalized (generic terms like "tyrannosauridae" or "ceratopsian" are not). What do you mean by "SIMPLE names of the animals and not proper nouns"? Names are always capitalized! "Styracosaurus" is not the same as for example "dog" or "cat" (the generic term for Styracosaurus and Brontosaurus is "dinosaur" which obviously is not capitalized!). So why not the capitalization? Dutzi (talk) 16:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The word "dinosaur" is used in the same sense as "dog", "cat", "horse" and so on, not Styracosaurus, Tyrannosaurus rex etc.. I repeat, the genus of a dinosaur is always capitalized. Have you seen the article about Styracosaurus for example? There you can see that the "name" of this particular dinosaur is always captalized when it is mentioned, and this applies for all other dinosaurs and their articles.

And could you please post your answers directly after my comments, so that other users are able to follow the discussion if needed. Dutzi (talk) 20:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at this! This is from the Wikipedia Talk page guidelines, "Good practice" section:

"Centralized discussion: Avoid posting the same thread in multiple forums. This fragments discussion of the idea, creating discussions in separate places with no interchange of ideas. This is rarely desirable, and leads to redundant effort where an idea that has already been adequately addressed has to be considered all over again."

Maybe I'm wrong (after all I'm a newcomer, perhaps you could explain it to me) but in my opinion a fragmented discussion is useless. Other users should also participate. I think nobody really looks to the other user's talk page to see if his comment or question has been answered. Is that really too much to ask for?

But this is not the central point of our discussion. By now I'm tired of discussing the Son of Kong/dinosaur issue. I won't change your edits. But if you say that it is "irrelevant", why not use the common, "scientific" diction? Dutzi (talk) 22:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually I don't understand at all what you are talking about or what your problem is! As I already said, I'm still a newcomer and I'm not familiar with all the Wiki rules yet. I've read somewhere in the Wiki guidelines that newcomers shouldn't be "bited" or "attacked" or whatever the word was. I have been fair and reasonable and I think your arguments concerning the dinosaurs are more than contradictory. My comments were not "irrational defenses"! And what exactly doesn't make sense? I just wanted to have a plain and "fair" discussion about an (in my opinion) important issue. But I guess you are not interested. I'm sorry for having bothered you! Regards. Dutzi (talk) 20:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Audie Murphy's birthyear

Hello Ted, There are conflicting reports of Audie Murphy's birthyear. It looks like the proper year is 1925, as in your correction. His gravestone also has the incorrect year, but maybe we shouldn't change that. ;-) My uncle also adjusted his birthyear to get into the Army Air Corp in the late 30s. Thanks again, -Frank Gouveia2 (talk) 22:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Lesley Scott

Thanks for alerting me to changes to the above-named article. Your changes are very much for the better, and very much appreciated. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 01:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Mel Blanc

FYI... Your careful explanation about the 7 voices notwithstanding, a "new" user is on an anti-trivia crusade and has zapped the reference in that article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and re-inserted a lot of that information; it wasn't "trivia" at all, and in fact, those "homages and tributes" carried some encyclopedic weight. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 23:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Be aware that there's a discussion going on about this guy's activities. [1] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Ed Fitzgerald, with whom I am currently in collaboration on The Maltese Falcon pages, had something to say about this kind of phenomena at his own user page:

It appears that there are people on Wikipedia who spend large parts of their time going through articles with an eye towards removing information that they feel is too unimportant to be included. Their ability to differentiate between what is important and what is not seems to be limited to what has been labelled as "trivia" and what has not.

Although some editors don't seem to understand it, there is a distinct semantic difference between "trivia" and "miscellaneous facts" -- one implies triviality, while the other denotes factual items that either do not fit readily into existing sections, or that are interesting or important enough to be noted, without being weighty enough to justify further exposition.

Another group of editors works entirely from a negative perspective. Their watchwords are "Wikipedia is not a [insert particular phobia here]," and they work overtime to delete (sometimes systematically, and often using their powers as administrators) anything that smacks of their personal bete noire. While they are often correct in an absolute sense, they are at the same time totally wrong. Wikipedia may not be a social networking site, for instance, but that doesn't mean that it can't or shouldn't have aspects about it which are similar to a social networking site.

It's amazing that these obstructionist editors can be so definite about what Wikipedia is, considering that Wikipedia is an entirely new kind of thing, and its nature is still in the process of being determined. By slamming the door shut on a specific evolutionary pathway, these editors are, in fact, forcing their personal point of view on the project. When they say "Wikipedia is not [whatever]," what they are really saying is "I don't want Wikipedia to be [whatever], and I'm willing to force my preference on everyone." Their actions are the result of prejudices and closed minds, and their actions do a disservice to the project.

Whew! Now isn't that a wake-up call! Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 00:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Outstanding. I like Ed better every day. I wish he would add his forceful statements to that comment page I mentioned above, because that's exactly what this allegedly "new" user WillOakland is doing. And I say "allegedly" because it's perfectly obvious he came in here on February 5th already knowing his way around. Like User:Burntsauce reincarnated. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and asked him to do so, if he's willing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I recently encountered a couple of articles with their respective "Trivia" sections deleted whole hog (e.g., The Incredible Hulk (TV series), on 8 Feb. by an IP, & that was a big one). On the other hand, I don't think that simply retitling such sections "Miscellanea" and deleting the "Trivia" warning tag (as I have also seen--the tag wasn't dumped, but otherwise Hulk is again an example) deals with the regs' concerns either. In any event, the statements here that this sort of section isn't unilaterally prohibited and that the existences of several aren't flouting regs is good to hear. And thanks for the heads up. Ted Watson (talk) 22:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Jack/Rose

Rose just doesn't make sense in the context. I know they discussed Rose in "Utopia" but now things have moved on. At this point in "SoD" they are discussing the perception filter, and the Doctor says "It's like you fancy someone and they don't even know you exist". 1. Jack's expression is very similar to Martha's. 2. We know he fancies the Doctor. 3. They're not even thinking about Rose. 3. The "You too?" doesn't make sense if it's Rose. It's basically "you fancy him and he doesn't notice as well?" The Doctor knew Rose fancied him and he was pretty much in love with her, so there's no "you too" about it...Martha's situation (of unrequited love) is like Jack's not Rose's. Anyway, that's all my take, which is why I said "almost certainly not Rose". But that is POV, which I accept, hence I removed the whole comment, rather than reverting back to the "this refers to Jack" comment which was there before. Any conclusion is OR without a source. The DVD commentary doesn't seem to refer to it, so we need some interview or something with RTD to discover what he had in mind when he wrote it. Until then, any conclusion is speculation. (although interesting. Rose never even crossed my mind until I saw that edit...perhaps there's some reasoning I missed?) Interesting to discuss it with you... Gwinva (talk) 22:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, interesting...just shows how we all make different assumptions, and I take back my "almost certainly not" comment! All the more reason to keep those sorts of interpretive comments out of the articles without sources. I think some writers put lines in like that on purpose just to stir up fan speculation! But you've never thought Jack fancies the Doctor? Seen Torchwood? Gwinva (talk) 22:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough; it's not everyone's cup of tea. Only mentioned it because the Doctor/Jack allusions were a bit more obvious (being post watershed). Still, even that's interpretation. He doesn't actually say "I fancy the Doctor". Gwinva (talk) 04:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)