User talk:Xeworlebi: Difference between revisions
Reverted 1 edit by Sfan00 IMG (talk): Seen. (TW) |
→Mass tagging: 2 cents |
||
| Line 58: | Line 58: | ||
::You don't need to cite notability guidelines to me, I am quite familiar with them. The point is, there is a consistent format for articles across a series--it would not make sense for a few episodes to have articles and a few not, so if you believe the articles are not notable then you should make a suggestion to merge ''all'' of them into lists, rather than just tagging a few at random. These episodes have had individual articles for years and, as far as I can tell, this has not been challenged. Personally I don't have a very strong preference either way, although I think coverage in reliable sources probably exists somewhere for most of these episodes. I am just saying that, if you think these episodes are not notable, you need to start a centralized discussion about how to deal with all of them; drive-by tagging a select few is not going to solve anything. <b class="IPA">[[Special:Contributions/Rjanag|r<font color="#8B0000">ʨ</font>anaɢ]]</b> ([[User talk:Rjanag|talk]]) 16:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC) |
::You don't need to cite notability guidelines to me, I am quite familiar with them. The point is, there is a consistent format for articles across a series--it would not make sense for a few episodes to have articles and a few not, so if you believe the articles are not notable then you should make a suggestion to merge ''all'' of them into lists, rather than just tagging a few at random. These episodes have had individual articles for years and, as far as I can tell, this has not been challenged. Personally I don't have a very strong preference either way, although I think coverage in reliable sources probably exists somewhere for most of these episodes. I am just saying that, if you think these episodes are not notable, you need to start a centralized discussion about how to deal with all of them; drive-by tagging a select few is not going to solve anything. <b class="IPA">[[Special:Contributions/Rjanag|r<font color="#8B0000">ʨ</font>anaɢ]]</b> ([[User talk:Rjanag|talk]]) 16:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::I do not have to start a centralized discussion to tag an article, just like I've tagged many ''Buffy'' and ''Angel'' and many other shows. This is not tagging a few at random, many episode articles do not meet [[WP:GNG]], the tagging is entirely appropriate, you have to start somewhere, this is not tagging a random article, this is tagging one of many. You might be interested in [[WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS]] and [[WP:POKEMON]]. I'll continue tagging articles that fail [[WP:GNG]] with {{Tlx|notability}} as is the appropriate way to do for those articles. <span style="font-family: Palatino;">[[User:Xeworlebi|'''<big><big><sub>X</sub></big></big>'''eworlebi]] <sup>([[User talk:Xeworlebi|talk]])</sup></span> 17:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC) |
:::I do not have to start a centralized discussion to tag an article, just like I've tagged many ''Buffy'' and ''Angel'' and many other shows. This is not tagging a few at random, many episode articles do not meet [[WP:GNG]], the tagging is entirely appropriate, you have to start somewhere, this is not tagging a random article, this is tagging one of many. You might be interested in [[WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS]] and [[WP:POKEMON]]. I'll continue tagging articles that fail [[WP:GNG]] with {{Tlx|notability}} as is the appropriate way to do for those articles. <span style="font-family: Palatino;">[[User:Xeworlebi|'''<big><big><sub>X</sub></big></big>'''eworlebi]] <sup>([[User talk:Xeworlebi|talk]])</sup></span> 17:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC) |
||
Please forgive me for chiming in, but you're ''both'' incorrect.<br />Rjanag: {{xt|it would not make sense for a few episodes to have articles and a few not}} -- Wrong. Each episode must meet the GNG on its own merits. Notability is not inherited. If some episodes of a series happen to meet the GNG and others don't, then the former should have articles and the latter shouldn't.<br />Xeworlebi: {{xt|tagging articles that fail WP:GNG with <nowiki>{{notability}}</nowiki> as is the appropriate way to do for those articles}} -- Wrong. Articles which clearly fail the GNG should be ''deleted'', not tagged (except with a deletion template of course). Template:Notability is for cases where the tagging user is not sure whether or not the article subject meets the GNG ("<u>may</u> not meet the general notability guideline"). --[[Special:Contributions/213.168.111.208|213.168.111.208]] ([[User talk:213.168.111.208|talk]]) 19:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== [[List of Band of Brothers episodes]] == |
== [[List of Band of Brothers episodes]] == |
||
Revision as of 19:45, 8 June 2011
| ↓ | ↓ |
 | If you started a new discussion on my talk page I will reply here. If I left you a message on your talk page respond there, I am watching your talk page. Only if you don't respond in a timely fashion, and your talk page is frequently edited I will remove your talk page from my watchlist, if that is the case, and I haven't responded to your reply for a few days, consider placing a {{Talkback}} notification here. Some users reply, when they get a message on their talk page, here instead of on their own. Such conversations threading back and forth between two talk pages can make reading back a conversation quite cumbersome even for those involved, and leaves a very hard to decipher trail for other editors who may wish to read the conversation at a future date. |  |
 | New discussion are added at the bottom of the page. Click here or use the "Post a comment" talk page feature to start a new section, it will be automatically placed at the bottom of the page. Section titles should be short, preferably fewer than ten words, on point and unambiguous. If you are replying to an existing section, please use the [edit] button of the intended section, this places the name of the section in the edit summary for clarity. Please do not use the last sections edit button when starting new sections as it creates a wrong edit summary. |
 | A reply should be placed beneath the original comment. The reply should be indented. If two replies are made to one specific comment, they should be at the same level of indentation with the later reply at the bottom. A response to a reply should be placed below that reply, but above all later replies. The response should be indented relative to the adjacent replies. A new comment or sub-thread that is being added after a number of replies should go at the bottom. Do not add a new comment or sub-thread where it will separate an earlier comment from its replies. If the level of indentation becomes to great (6+) outdent the next post by using {{Outdent2}} at the start of the message. |  |
 | Signing your posts on talk pages is a good practice, and facilitates discussion by helping identify the author of a particular comment. Sign your posts by inserting four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message. Please note that it is impossible to leave an anonymous comment because your user name or IP address is recorded in the page history. |
 |  |
Covert Affairs
Could you assist me in developing my new article on Covert Affairs season 1, The draft is right here. mauchoeagle (c) 20:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- Too early for a season article, all relevant information can go on the main article for now, when that one gets to big a season article would be needed, or if the episode list gets to long. Xeworlebi (talk) 21:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you, Xeworlebi, for your helpful copyediting to the article Santorum (neologism). Much appreciated. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 09:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
No problem. Xeworlebi (talk) 09:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Falling Skies episode list
You keep removing my contributions to the Falling Skies episode table. First off, the table is dreadful. It would look better if it looked like List of The Walking Dead episodes. Second, I am trying to fix it up. If you want to fix it up, great. So go ahead then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimmyDarmodyRules (talk • contribs) 12:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- Absolutely pointless at this point, the show hasn't even premiered yet, there's absolutely no need for a season page nor for a
|EpisodeNumber2=column now. What is there to "fix up"? At this point nothing. Also, no not delete comments from talk pages. Xeworlebi (talk) 12:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Game of Thrones (season 1) episode descriptions
Hello! I am writing about the episode descriptions that you reverted earlier today [1]. I was under the impression that the content at tv.com is free to use (because it's freely editable by users). I just wanted to say that I am relatively new to wikipedia and wasn't aware that my edits would constitute copyright violations. Apologies for that. --Tuniof (talk) 23:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- No, everything you post to a website usually becomes theirs, even here on Wikipedia. Additionally, TV.com is often a copy from some other website/magazine/press release. Now you know it shouldn't be a problem in the future. Xeworlebi (talk) 06:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Nikita
Isn't it common practice to have full season ranking in a table format? That way full season information is easier to find, and prose is used for individual milestone episodes. Jayy008 (talk) 22:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Not really, prose is almost always preferred over tables, only when a table format would be considerably more accessible it should be used. For a single season a table format is quite excessive. If we're several seasons in such format may become ore preferable, for now prose is better. Xeworlebi (talk) 06:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Falling Skies Season 1
When will Falling Skies (season 1) be able to re-edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllianceApprovedMagician (talk • contribs) 23:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Not sure, maybe in a couple years, when there's a need for. Xeworlebi (talk) 06:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Alright, douche... How about you answer me properly! Putting everyone else in handcuffs won't make it easier to edit this site. It's necessary to have the page after it airs and gets a pick-up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllianceApprovedMagician (talk • contribs) 16:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- First of all, no personal attacks, calling me a douche won't help you in any way. Secondly, the article Falling Skies (season 1) is not protected so can be edited by anyone. Thirdly, calling this putting you in handcuffs is like saying I'm keeping you hostage because you can't leave the planet. Editing that page won't be necessary for the time being. Any relevant info you want to add you can add to Falling Skies, and episode summaries can be added to List of Falling Skies episodes. Xeworlebi (talk) 17:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Okay sorry. It seems I am the douche. But every time I click on Falling Skies season 1 page it re directs me. Can I please just get to work on it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllianceApprovedMagician (talk • contribs) 18:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- I have again no clue what you're talking about. Besides there being absolutely no reason to "get to work on it", there's no-one stopping you from doing so, although reverting probably will happen if you do. Why don't you work some on the main article? Xeworlebi (talk) 18:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Okay sorry. It seems I am the douche. But every time I click on Falling Skies season 1 page it re directs me. Can I please just get to work on it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllianceApprovedMagician (talk • contribs) 18:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- First of all, no personal attacks, calling me a douche won't help you in any way. Secondly, the article Falling Skies (season 1) is not protected so can be edited by anyone. Thirdly, calling this putting you in handcuffs is like saying I'm keeping you hostage because you can't leave the planet. Editing that page won't be necessary for the time being. Any relevant info you want to add you can add to Falling Skies, and episode summaries can be added to List of Falling Skies episodes. Xeworlebi (talk) 17:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Alright, douche... How about you answer me properly! Putting everyone else in handcuffs won't make it easier to edit this site. It's necessary to have the page after it airs and gets a pick-up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllianceApprovedMagician (talk • contribs) 16:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Mass tagging
I see you have been adding {{notability}} tags to a large number of articles Buffy and Angel articles, without providing any rationale as far as I can tell. There has been a longstanding consensus that individual episodes of these shows have their own articles. If you believe that should change, I recommend you start a centralized discussion at one of the parent article's talk pages, rather than randomly drive-by tagging a large number of articles. Thank you, rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) There's absolutely no such consensus, there's in fact a widespread problem with non-notable episode articles for many shows. Notability is not inherited, if you can't show notability for an article then the tag is perfectly appropriate, if you can add the sourced information to the article establishing notability then by all means remove the tag after you do so. Xeworlebi (talk) 16:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- You don't need to cite notability guidelines to me, I am quite familiar with them. The point is, there is a consistent format for articles across a series--it would not make sense for a few episodes to have articles and a few not, so if you believe the articles are not notable then you should make a suggestion to merge all of them into lists, rather than just tagging a few at random. These episodes have had individual articles for years and, as far as I can tell, this has not been challenged. Personally I don't have a very strong preference either way, although I think coverage in reliable sources probably exists somewhere for most of these episodes. I am just saying that, if you think these episodes are not notable, you need to start a centralized discussion about how to deal with all of them; drive-by tagging a select few is not going to solve anything. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- I do not have to start a centralized discussion to tag an article, just like I've tagged many Buffy and Angel and many other shows. This is not tagging a few at random, many episode articles do not meet WP:GNG, the tagging is entirely appropriate, you have to start somewhere, this is not tagging a random article, this is tagging one of many. You might be interested in WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:POKEMON. I'll continue tagging articles that fail WP:GNG with
{{notability}}as is the appropriate way to do for those articles. Xeworlebi (talk) 17:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- I do not have to start a centralized discussion to tag an article, just like I've tagged many Buffy and Angel and many other shows. This is not tagging a few at random, many episode articles do not meet WP:GNG, the tagging is entirely appropriate, you have to start somewhere, this is not tagging a random article, this is tagging one of many. You might be interested in WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:POKEMON. I'll continue tagging articles that fail WP:GNG with
- You don't need to cite notability guidelines to me, I am quite familiar with them. The point is, there is a consistent format for articles across a series--it would not make sense for a few episodes to have articles and a few not, so if you believe the articles are not notable then you should make a suggestion to merge all of them into lists, rather than just tagging a few at random. These episodes have had individual articles for years and, as far as I can tell, this has not been challenged. Personally I don't have a very strong preference either way, although I think coverage in reliable sources probably exists somewhere for most of these episodes. I am just saying that, if you think these episodes are not notable, you need to start a centralized discussion about how to deal with all of them; drive-by tagging a select few is not going to solve anything. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Please forgive me for chiming in, but you're both incorrect.
Rjanag: it would not make sense for a few episodes to have articles and a few not -- Wrong. Each episode must meet the GNG on its own merits. Notability is not inherited. If some episodes of a series happen to meet the GNG and others don't, then the former should have articles and the latter shouldn't.
Xeworlebi: tagging articles that fail WP:GNG with {{notability}} as is the appropriate way to do for those articles -- Wrong. Articles which clearly fail the GNG should be deleted, not tagged (except with a deletion template of course). Template:Notability is for cases where the tagging user is not sure whether or not the article subject meets the GNG ("may not meet the general notability guideline"). --213.168.111.208 (talk) 19:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I've made a small modification to the first sentence, see [2]. I did so based on looking at lots of featured lists. I hope it'll be OK, but ff you're unhappy about it, could we please discuss it on Talk:List of Band of Brothers episodes. Cheers! Chzz ► 16:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)