User talk:TTN/Archive 7

Archives
June 2006 to September 2006 September 2006 to January 2007 January 2007 to April 2007 April 2007 to May 2007 May 2007 to June 2007 June 2007

episode tags

I see no evidence that you have evaluated the episode articles that you added the tags to - you made no attempt to discuss, just stuck your tags on in an arbitrary manner, and pointed to a guideline. I don't think this is a valid way of constructing the encyclopedia, and find it disruptive and rude. On the other hand, my involvement in these particular pages has been minimal - mostly trying to bring them up to standard in terms of language, grammar, and comprehensibility - so I'm not sure how I'll proceed. But I do object to the arbitray way this is being done. Tvoz |talk 21:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't want to see you spam the episode articles. I think you might try understanding that people other than you have points of view about how Wikipedia should work - and that includes whether the guideline WP:Episode must be considered gospel - and you might try a more collegial attitude. Tvoz |talk 23:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, having just read your notice on the main page, I'd add that giving 14 days and threatening to delete the work that many editors have contributed to is not in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia. Tvoz |talk 23:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I too am a bit bothered about the tags you added all over. I realize that you only mean to improve Wikipedia, but, WP:OWN or not, these tags clearly step on quite a few toes. My problem with this however is, that you are just adding them to all Futurama pages by default (correct me if I'm wrong!). You ask that every single article be reviewed, but you attach the tags without any explanation or other notification on the talk page. I hope you can see how this can be viewed as attacking other people's efforts. I am not saying that they might not all be reasonable (The notability section in WP:EPISODE definitely has apoint), but I strongly suggest you go about this differently – individually. Maybe set those (huge!) things on the talk pages, not the top of the articles. — Mütze 01:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you really expect to receive any sort of response on separate episode talk pages? The point of doing it on the episode list is to actually get a discussion going (it's not that hard for people to find it). Separate cases can easily be discussed there. TTN 01:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Then why not start a discussion on the "List of..." talk pages rather than adding the tags to each episode page? Tvoz |talk 01:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Because there needs to be no room to complain about a lack of open discussion. TTN 01:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

How about there actually being an open discussion, rather than what sounds like the construction of a case and a priori pre-judging? Tvoz |talk 02:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

We tag episodes, open a discussion, and wait. If people respond and show that these can meet standards, they stay. Otherwise, people take a quick look over them and keep or redirect them depending on potential. The episodes are bad, so they must assert notability. This is the best way to deal with them while having minimal complaints. I'm not getting why you find the tags to be bad. These are essentially cleanup and merge tags in one. One of those would be added otherwise. TTN 02:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

They are "bad" because they are being added without justification to all episode pages of one series at the same time by default. As I said before: You are asking people to defend the existence of all these articles in 14 days, but at the same time you aren't making any individual comment on any of them. If you just add a default tag this becomes a random attack on the pages, not a constructive way to better them. Are you expecting the entire community of Futurama contributors to start defending themselves against this for every episode individually? If you want to help, look at the pages individually, but don't just assume they are all non-notable. — Mütze 15:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The tags are to get the general word out there. After that, a discussion over the quality of all the articles happens on some main talk page. If the general quality isn't up to snuff, the bulk are redirected and special cases are looked at. That is how it works. TTN 15:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I think it shouldn't. I agree that many episode pages need work, but this just isn't the right way. It simply isn't nice, and frankly your constant "This is the way it is, deal with it"-attitude is starting to annoy me. If you think there is a general problem with the Futurama episode articles, the polite and most productive thing to do is take it to the people who take care of these articles as a whole, the Futurama WikiProject. At least for my taste, you are proceeding far too boldly with this, considering that WP:TV-REVIEW is still only a proposed guideline. All I ask for the moment is that you put the tags on the talk pages, not the articles, because 1) they are huge and 2) they are written quite harshly, strongly suggesting that the concerning article is rubbish anyway, but without giving any justification. IMHO, Template:TelevisionWikiProject is far more useful for assessing the scope of any episode article, because it presents itself in a constructive, not a destructive way — and it is put on the talk page. — Mütze 18:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

If you care that much, take it up at one of those places. This is the way it is being done at this point, so complaining to just me won't do much. TTN 18:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, You're right. I reposted my objections here — Mütze 18:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, I think complaining to you will do much. It will show you that people think you're an asshole. You tagged all episodes of a TV show without reviewing each article individually. That's not how it's supposed to work. Now you've forced everyone who worked on them to defend them in order to keep them up. So even if the articles deserve to stay, you've caused everyone a big pain. Equazcion 22:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, he's forced everyone who worked on them to defend in order to keep them up? That's kind of how it's supposed to work. It's not other contributors job to fix hundreds of articles that clearly do not fit the guidelines. And who says he didn't review them individually? It's rather easy to look for a 'references' section, as lacking that warrants the tag. Alcemáe T • C 22:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

He tagged episodes indiscriminately, even those that have a references section. He simply added tags to all episodes of a show. That's not how it's supposed to work. Equazcion 22:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe that there were a couple of references at most in all of those articles, and neither was of any quality, so they mean nothing. TTN 23:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Not all sources are allowed, such as IMDB or TV.com. Show me a tagged article with reliable sources, and I will concede. Alcemáe T • C 23:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Look at the wonderful references on Monday (The X-Files). That's worth keeping... TTN 23:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Those would be references that are not reliable, and as such, that article can and should be tagged. Alcemáe T • C 23:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

And anyways, even if I made one or two mistakes out of over 100 articles, what is the big deal? They can be fixed accordingly. Picking at me isn't going to do you any good, so I suggest that you just actually work on them. TTN 23:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The big deal is exactly that. You're tagging hundreds of articles at a time rather than reviewing each one individually. You even tagged an episode that you just said is wonderfully referenced. If it's so wonderfully referenced then why'd you tag it? This is what "indiscriminately" means. Equazcion 23:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Usually, "..." is a indicator of sarcasm. I looked at all of them. It isn't very hard to go "References? No? Tag!" and "References? Yes? Good references? No? Tag!" TTN 23:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

(ec)It was sarcasm. Again, it does not take long to check for useful references. Alcemáe T • C 23:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't respond to sarcasm, and I didn't expect to come across it in what I thought was an adult conversation. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia not an IMDB message board. The tags are already there and can't be deleted anyway, so I guess it's lucky that I don't need to continue this discussion. Equazcion 23:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You dont respond to sarcasm? Well, then I'll say it without it. The article TTN mentions does not have acceptable sources. Therefore, it should be deleted or redirected. However, people get mad when that happens. So he tagged it, as he should have, so that it can be reviewed. And when it is, odds are good that it will be redirected then. There. No sarcasm. Alcemáe T • C 23:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Radiator Springs

On this edit, you stated that there was a discussion on the merge and no one was against it. That is false. See Talk:Radiator Springs#Merge. Please do not make false statements on edit summaries, please start discussing these sorts of major edits on the talk pages first. A•N•N•A hi! 14:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

You're looking at the wrong discussion. You want the one on the film article. TTN 14:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

GA delist

I have a favor to ask. Since you are an outside contributor, can you also delist the GAs on Cloud, Aerith, and Jenova? They're in terrible condition, but I don't want to appear like a traitor :-P — Deckiller 15:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure. TTN 15:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks. — Deckiller 15:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Episodes vs films

The comment you made in this edit summary has no basis in fact. The use of 'inherently' is misguided and misguiding. To be honest, I'm undecided in this guideline as I'm sympathetic to some of your intentions, but I'm very uncomfortable with which the speed you are going about this. The JPS^{talk to me} 22:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it makes perfect sense. All major movies (ones that appear in more than a couple hundred theaters) will always have the possibility for development and reception from more sources than themselves? It's only been a few series a day so far, so I don't know what you want the pace to be. So, you would rather this never finish over your personal feelings. This isn't just my opinion. It is quite backed by WP:V and WP:N. TTN 22:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Requesting other users to edit war on your behalf[1] is just as good as edit warring. Matthew 22:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Episodes that are broadcast to millions simultaneously and sold to thousands on DVD are clearly notable. It's not just as if their broadcast is accidental (a tree is not notable just because of a fleeting glimpse in a pan shot during Neighbours). I suggest you rephrase 'inherently': meaning is not inherent, it is simply what one wishes to apply. As has been commented, this is not urgent: they aren't copyright violations, nor or they damaging BLP. It will do no harm to take things more slowly considering the enormity of this (this is going to effect over 1,000 articles). As I say, I am sympathetic to your intentions, and I could support you, but this is too sudden for me to be comfortable.
Oh, and I concur with Matthew's comments about getting other users to edit war on your behalf: Bignole could have potentially been blocked for 3RR there. No-one wants this to get that nasty, but perhaps another admin might have swooped upon the opportunity. It's not worth it.
Ah, and the school holidays haven't started yet: that's when the silly season really kicks in. The JPS^{talk to me} 21:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

That does not concur with WP:N. Most episode don't have the sources to assert themselves, so they are not notable. Do you see how many episode articles there are (way over one thousand)? Doing this slowly means that it will never get done. These violate WP:EPISODE, WP:FICT, WP:WAF, WP:N, WP:V, and WP:NOT (plot summaries only) (probably more), and they will never get better. They have to be dealt with or it will just go on and on.

On "inherently", all major movies can by typed about in great detail with sources backing them, and 95% of episodes cannot, so movies get that quality. TTN 21:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but many movies do not have the quality. x is an episode of y is an assertion of notability. Doing it slowly (at first, anyway) is essential until consensus builds properly and the controversy dies down. The JPS^{talk to me} 22:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

All major films have the quality. Only direct to "x" ones and ones that are in a low number of theaters don't have that quality, but those are not major. Notability is not inherited from a parent topic; sources must be possible for them to exist without worry. Please read WP:N throughly if you really believe that. We already have a guideline to back this, and we're opening discussions and getting the word out with a merge/cleanup tag, which is the "correct" way to do things. A general consensus is already set. People are just taking the tags the wrong way or just want to protect "their" articles no matter what. TTN 22:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration

Angie appears to have forgotten to notify you of her request for arbitration on you. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#TTN. - Zero1328 _Talk? 03:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, whoops. I'll do that now.

TTN, I am filing you for arbitration. Your countless deletions and redirects have gone on far enough. Angie Y. 04:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm adding myself to this arbitration filing... Better late than never... Undead Herle King 00:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Notability in Fiction

Hey TTN, since by your contributions you appear to be interested in reducing the quantity of non-notable articles in Wikipedia, I though you might be interested in this Guideline being discussed -凶 19:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

AWB

I have approved you for AWB use on a probational period due to the warnings of other users. I will be watching your contributions (not to scare you or anything :-) for a little while to make sure it's OK and no one complains. —METS501 (talk) 21:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Tag

Good job on tagging articles. However, I am beginning to realize the vast amount of work that is about to be unleashed. I would request that you stop tagging articles. There are enough articles tagged, and if we have thousands of articles to be reviewed, it will probably not be manageable. We do not currently have an efficient, decided course of evaluation, and if we have a thousand page backlog, it won't help it. Also, moving articles from the cat to be reviewed is annoying. Again, I would ask that you stop using the template for now, until we have a workable system to edit. Thanks for the work though :) Alcemáe T • C 05:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

DIME cabal! ZOMG!

Hey. Just so you know, if you need any support for your actions, count me in. People need to read WP:NOT :D Will ^(talk) 17:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Mario

Is it okay with you if I mediate your MedCab case? Cool Blue^{talk to me} 20:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess we can try it out. TTN 20:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Everyone Is Special

You missed that one. I'll be glad to see them gone but you sure have clogged up my watch list. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Found two more for you. Hats Off to B.J.! and When I Grow Up... and that looks like all of them. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The X-Files episodes

Could you please explain why you have seen fit to tag every single X-Files episode page with a "does not satisfy notability guidelines for television episodes" tag? And if they don't "satisfy notability" can you please explain to me how a television episode would? I hardly see how The X-Files episodes are any less "notable" than say, Stargate SG-1 episodes. Thanks. -- Grandpafootsoldier 05:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Please look over WP:EPISODE. TTN 14:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

WOULD YOU STOP CITING THE GUIDELINE ALREADY? This is what got you into the Admins' Noticeboard in the first place! My friends and I will put an end to this, TTN! Angie Y. 21:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)