User talk:Drmargi

Talkback #3

Hello, Drmargi. You have new messages at Kevinbrogers's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Smelly socks?

I don't know whether you watch Warehouse 13, but today an article about a recurring character appeared out of nowhere. The author restored the article after I redirected it. Before that though, he/she started a discussion on the talk page. Within 24 minutes an IP responded,[1] and then, an account that appears to have been created just to post glowing comments on the talk page responded 53 minutes later.[2] It seems to be a hell of a lot of attention for a new article. I can't help thinking some socking is involved. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Funny, I heard ducks quacking before I finished reading this. That must be a flock of the sock variety. I don't watch the show but am familiar with the character as I have a friend who's an avid viewer. I might make a little phone call. --Drmargi (talk) 12:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I just read through everything, and tagged a couple issues on the main article. I also had a look at the article on wikia; the lists such as are in the article abound over there and I wondered if there might have been some plagiarism. Take a peek: the wikia article is vastly better. --Drmargi (talk) 14:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

On Helena Wells

Hi Drmargi, can you help me understand what it is about the secondary independent references I included this morning that somehow do not denote proper notability? I did make an entry on the talk page before removing the tag, by the way, I'm just not sure if you read it. If you can respond there that would be great. I have no problem making the suggested improvements, but this is my first article so I am not sure about everything just yet. Thanks. Electprogeny (talk) 18:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

What you have now is a wall of text. Someone made major edits to the text yesterday to reduce the in-universe content, and your little friend Mynameisme (or whatever it is) immediately, and wrongly, reverted it. You don't have to include every little thing you know about the character; be selective! As it is now, the article is utterly unreadable. Worse, it's got so much in-universe content, it's in deletion territory again. And you still haven't made a case for why the character is notable enough to merit an article, just loaded it up with minutia. I could boil down most of what's in that article that's really important into one or two paragraphs and restore it to the characters article, and we'd know as much as we need to know now. WHY is this character so important? I just don't see it. All your secondary references do make the content you've added verifiable. Have you read WP:NOTABILITY? If not, do. --Drmargi (talk) 14:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I will continue to work on the in-universe style which requires further re-writing as opposed to deletion of text. I left a comment in a section on that issue on the talk page for the article - can you pick something from the article and let me know what is "in-universe" about that particular selection so I can research a better way to phrase it? That would be a tremendous help. As for the notability, it was categorically stated by a helper/admin-type that the article has established notability - comments were left by that person to specify this in both talk pages pertinent to that discussion. The wall of text - not sure what that's supposed to mean in terms of a suggestion.

To answer your question about "WHY is this character so important" - there are a lot of reasons, but primarily it's because I think the influence of H.G. on the show has been monumental. She's not, by any means, a trivial character. She completely changes the way Myka responds to the world around her in severely meaningful ways. Joanne, Jack, Jaime, and Saul have all talked about that. Additionally, her role in shaping the way things played out at the end of the last season is huge, and Syfy IS in the middle of creating an entire series around her (which has been well-documented all over the place and is even brought up on the DVD commentaries). It may be that some feel this character does not deserve to be given an independent article because she's not a principle on Warehouse 13, but she is not "just" a recurring character and is not, by any means, a minor one. Thanks for the suggestions, I appreciate them. Electprogeny (talk) 16:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

"As for the notability, it was categorically stated by a helper/admin-type that the article has established notability" - That's simply an opinion of one editor (who isn't an admin by the way, not that being an admin makes any difference) Having reviewed the sources that were added, I agree with Drmargi, notability doesn't appear to be established. WP:N requires significant coverage, i.e. more than a mention in a recap for example. As for in-universe perspective, this is addressed in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I was told that I needed at least 4 secondary sources that fit the bill, and multiple folks in the helper area agreed this had been met. Was told to contact them again if this came up for issue, but I will continue to add references in any case. Thanks for the link, I've viewed it multiple times and feel as if the article is in keeping with that guideline. No one seems to have any actual example of just WHAT they think is still in-universe, nor any suggestion on what a re-written example from the article would look like. Until someone can assist me with that, I am unable to determine if the concern is valid. Electprogeny (talk) 22:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

In the "helper area" (which I assume is the Teahouse) those editors, like the single editor, don't make unilateral decisions. You badly, badly need to read WP:CONSENSUS. Any editor can challenge whether you've established notability at any time and the consensus process kicks in. --Drmargi (talk) 00:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I can't see anywhere in the Teahouse where any specific number of sources has been mentioned. Electprogeny was told, quite appropriately, "the salient issue as I see it and as the other user has also referred to, is whether there exist sufficient, independent, reliable secondary sources which cover the topic in some depth." If Electprogeny has been given a spefic number, then he's getting bad advice as this is specified nowhere. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Food Network Star

As far as this, two things:

1. The series was never called The Food Network Star.
2. Why isn't a new reference sufficient? It would be different if that reference were present before and the consensus was not to move. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 03:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

That the name changed was never in question. Whether the articles moved should be moved was. Consensus was not to move, therefore you moved over consensus when you should have gone to the main article page and opened a new discussion. You didn't do that, and left yourself open to be reverted. The rest was my mistake, which I asked an admin to fix, nothing more. --Drmargi (talk) 08:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

You have that a little incorrect. As I clearly stated above, the ref that I added wasn't there when the consensus was not to move. There was no consensus (not yet, anyway) not to move after the ref was added. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 17:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)