If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "[[Special:Contributions/Oanabay04|my contributions]]" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Images.2FMedia|criteria for speedy deletion]]. If you have any questions please ask them at the [[Wikipedia:media copyright questions|Media copyright questions page]]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-no fair use rationale-notice --> [[User:Dvdplr|Dvdplr]] ([[User talk:Dvdplr|talk]]) 11:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "[[Special:Contributions/Oanabay04|my contributions]]" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Images.2FMedia|criteria for speedy deletion]]. If you have any questions please ask them at the [[Wikipedia:media copyright questions|Media copyright questions page]]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-no fair use rationale-notice --> [[User:Dvdplr|Dvdplr]] ([[User talk:Dvdplr|talk]]) 11:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
== FAR: Real Love (John Lennon song) ==
{{#if:|[[User:{{{2}}}]] has|I have}} nominated [[Real Love (John Lennon song)]] for a [[Wikipedia:Featured article review/Real Love (John Lennon song)/archive1|featured article review here]]. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets [[Wikipedia:What is a featured article?|featured article criteria]]. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are [[Wikipedia:Featured article review|here]].
--[[User:Plotfeat|Plotfeat]] ([[User talk:Plotfeat|talk]]) 19:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Revision as of 19:31, 12 April 2010
Welcome!
Hello, Oanabay04, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Eagleamn06:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Oanabay04. I wanted to explain my recent reverts of your changes to Daffy Duck and Bugs Bunny. You removed the wikilinks (square brackets) from the titles of several cartoon shorts (for example, "Dripalong Daffy"). I reverted because there are several articles on such shorts on Wikipedia already, and there's no reason to suspect that the ones you removed are not valid subjects for articles of their own. See in particular Wikipedia:Build the web. Thanks, and I hope to run into you in the future! — BrianSmithson14:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transportation in NYC
Hello Oanabay - I noticed your work on the New York City Subway article. You might be interested in the Transportation in New York City sub article. It tells a fascinating story and it's been nominated to be a US Collaboration of the Week after lots of work over the last few weeks. Check it out and if you like it, please vote for it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:USCOTW We need all the votes we can get! Wv23504:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for adding much excellent material to this article. Could you adjust the commentary to remove personal opinions? On a review website your critique would be welcome, but here we don't review works, we write Neutral point of view articles. This means that one can write about an Oscar-winning performance (or other awards that may have been won), or one highly praised by published critics, but not (for instance) "This boy is a potent source of comedy, without feeling like a forced element or hindering the plot." Even if it's true (and I'm sure it is) it is an expression of your opinion rather than something that can be verified as a fact. --Tony Sidaway13:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I saw you changed the dates in the Sandy Denny article. For instance, januari 6 to 6 januari. If they are in between brackets "[[" you don't have to change dates, they will show up for each user depending on his or her preferences. See also here. I thought I'd mention it to you, saves you some work. Also, thanks for improving that article. Cheers, Garion96(talk)15:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Micro Phonies (Stooges film). When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as the text has been restored from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Closedmouth05:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:CallingallCursTITLE.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:CallingallCursTITLE.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 11:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem, Badger Drink. The books are out there, and it does not take much to simply sift through a few pages, figures out how to properly put in a citation, and be done. Good stuff! Thanx, again! I appreciate the feedback... --Oanabay04 (talk) 9:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
No problem! I even ensured all the pages that linked to the original one were updated with the new link. Thanks for your comment. Lugnuts (talk) 15:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Flags
Yes, flags are slowly disappearing from infoboxes. Admittedly I am trying to help that. :) In general flags in infoboxes are being frowned according to the manual of style Wikipedia:Manual of Style (flags) and especially in birth at death section. Just the wording United States is more clear than a flag. Plus it helps to prevent really stupid edits. See this edit. Totally correct but utterly pointless. Even for that reason it is better to just remove the flag. Garion96(talk)21:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's fine (and preferable) to move them, but like I said before, you have to move them using the "move page" tab or have an admin do it for you. This is so that the page history is preserved. See the request I set up for these articles at Talk:Allen "Farina" Hoskins. I'm pretty sure the request will go through, and a mod will move the pages to name spaces without the nicknames.
The "move page" function keeps the entire edit history of the page before and after the move in one place, as if the page had always been named that way. So, you should never just move a page by cutting all the text out of one page, and pasting it into a new one; old revisions, notes, and attributions are much harder to keep track of if you do that. (But you may have to if, for instance, you're splitting a page into multiple topics.
Typically, when you move a page, you simply click on the "move" tab at the top of the page, and specify the new name. The article will be moved to the new namespace, and the old namespace will automatically become a redirect. If any other articles redirected to the old page, those redirects will have to be manually re-routed ot point ot the new article name.
If you want to move an article to a name that is already taken (for example, if you wanted to move an article to a name currently used as a redirect, like with Darwood Kaye and Darwood "Waldo" Kaye), you would have to list it at Wikipedia:Requested moves. A moderator would delete the redirect, and move the page for you, so that the page history is preserved.
Hi. You went in and made some edits to Allan Melvin's article, and some edits were in the info-box. I don't know too much about how info-boxes work. I tried to fix this problem, but I could not figure out how to do so. I thought that maybe you would know how. In his info-box (when you are in "editing mode"), it has the following three lines:
You know, for the life of me, I cannot get the "notable roles" section to actually appear. I have added many infoboxes to celebrity entries. As I am sure you know when in edit mode, there are soooo many different infobox formats; some with little to no info, others with every possible award the person won. Yet, I cannot get the "notable roles" to appear. I believe it has something to do with its placement in the list of entries. Try an wiki editor. Sorry I could not be of better help. Oanabay04 (talk) 17:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's very strange ... I certainly cannot figure it all out, that's for sure. Anyway, thank you for your reply. I will post the request for help elsewhere, and see if anyone else on Wikipedia can figure this out for us. So, check back on the page every so often, and you will be able to see whether or not anyone fixed it. When I submit requests for help, it's hit or miss. I either get the problem solved very quickly, or never at all. Hopefully, someone out there can fix this one. Thanks again! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
A follow-up. This (below) is what I found out from another user. I thought that you might want to know, as you deal with actor info-boxes a lot. I did a "Help Me" request on Wikipedia, and this was the Help reply that I received. Just thought you might want to be aware of all this. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
This is the reply to my Help Me request:
The problem is simple: the template {{Infobox actor}} does not have a parameter titled 'notable role' and as far as I can see it never has. Thus any value assigned to that parameter is simply ignored. The only solution (if you wish this information to appear in the box) is to rewrite the template. Since the template is both protected and complicated, this probably involved asking someone else to do it. Algebraist17:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On close inspection, the field did once exist, but was removed following discussion here. Looks like you'll have an argument on your hands if you do want it back. Algebraist18:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I just wanted to let you know in case you didn't realize, the above article you just created has an image of a Woody Woodpecker DVD on it. I didn't know the filename for the proper image so I didn't want to try and edit it myself and muck things up for you. Cheers! Redfarmer (talk) 23:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I realized that once I saved the article. It has since been fixed. Thanx for the extra set of eyes, though! Much appreciated! Oanabay04 (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Replaceable fair use Image:Lynchmob.jpeg
Replaceable fair use
Thanks for uploading Image:Lynchmob.jpeg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Esrever(klaT)05:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to hear it! The Stooges are a rather unappreciated and unrecognized comedy team in comparison to others, but I'm very happy to see that you and your fellow associates have been working on articles related to the team. As I said before, I greatly admire the Stooges and their knack for physical comedy. Y'know, the day they released the fifth Looney Tunes Golden Collection I was a little torn, since the new Three Stooges DVD was released at the same time; unfortunately, I've not been able to get my hands on either yet. :-/ — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 01:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, if I remember correctly, the Three Stooges article states that, sometime in late 2007, there was to be a massive DVD release of colorized Stooges shorts by Legend Films. While I have the first wave from a few years ago (which includes Sing a Song of Six Pants, Malice in the Palace, and my own personal faves, Disorder in the Court and Brideless Groom), but so far I've not heard or seen anything else concerning such. Were those DVDs ever released?
Also, the last time I saw the Stooges on television was about one year ago, on Spike TV, during a certain holiday break—in contrast to my childhood, when the Stooges were featured on at least two or three different channels and run frequently. Are there any plans to bring the show back to mainstream television? — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 02:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed you're pretty good at adding and cleaning-up sources to articles. D'you think you could help cleanup the footnotes at the Duck Soup article? I've been thinking of ways to make the footnotes look less messy, but I'm afraid I might screw them up. Thanks! — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 02:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the grammar fixes to Once. Just wanted to let you know that it is good Wikiquette to use the edit summary field to note what you've done with each edit you make, even the minor edits. Please read Help:Edit summary. Thank you. --Melty girl (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Autoblock
{unblock-auto|1=198.203.175.175|2=Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Aononemoose". The reason given for Aononemoose's block is: "Vandalism: mass redirecting".|3=Rockpocket|4=792946}
My IP adddress must be linked to the company I work for, as this is the second time my IP has been blocked. Please unblock when possible. Thanx! Oanabay04 (talk) 20:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):
A Beautiful Cherry Tree in Spring BloomTheres nothing like seeing a field full of spring flowers.
Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! ~~~~
If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Autumn not Spring then I wish you a happy First Day of Autumn {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! To spread this message to others, add {{subst:First Day Of Spring}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I like the improvements you did on the How High Is Up? article which I created last year. Did you do work on the page for the new DVD sets that are being released? Maybe we can work on an article for the Stoogeum in Gwynedd Valley--Ted-m (talk) 01:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The second Stooge DVD came out recently, and I got to see We Want Our Mummy for the first time in decades. Early in the film, the three walk into the museum curator's office wearing goofy masks and wigs. They spin 180 degrees, and it turns out the masks were on the backs of their heads - a schtick identical to that pulled by Harpo and Chico Marx a few years earlier in Duck Soup - and which suggests to me the gag is probably a lot older than that. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?23:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could be a coincidence. "Duck soup" used to be a very common expression for "a cinch" or something easy to do. I worked with someone from Thailand who liked to use that expression. But the Marxes and the Howards-and-Fine were all children of vaudeville, and I'm sure they "borrowed" from each other and other vaudevillians a great deal. I might have mentioned before, that Three Little Pigskins borrows some bits from Horse Feathers, such as tackling the ball-carrying referee. Both teams were great in their own way. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?13:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose the Marxes are held in somewhat higher esteem because of a degree of intellectualism that some see in their work - although I'm not sure they themselves saw it that way. I think one of them said they were "just four Jews trying to get a laugh." The same could be said of the Stooges (three Jews trying to get a laugh) except there was no accusation of intellectualism in the Stooges, it was pure dumb slapstick. But they did it so well. It's amazing to watch them at their best, as in the first two DVD series. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?13:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The idea of an actual Marx Brothers-Three Stooges crossover is one of those tantalizing might-have-beens. One could only imagine what kind of comic destruction these guys could have done together! :) Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 16:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Oanabay! I see you upload images. I've been trying to upload new images for The Colbert/O'Brien/Stewart feud, but so far haven't been able to successfully do this. Could you give me a step-by-step description of how you do it? I've read the instructions, but I still can't seem to get an image uploaded! If you could help me out in explaining it, I'd really appreciate it! Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 03:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-free media information and use rationaletrue– WARNING: ARTICLE IT WILL BE USE IN does not appear to exist!
Check capitalization. Enter only the exact title of a single article with no [[link brackets]] or other formatting. It is also possible the indicated article was deleted.
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to move Helter Shelter (Woody Woodpecker cartoon) by copying its content and pasting it into Helter Shelter (cartoon). This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is considered undesirable because it splits the page history which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.
In most cases, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other articles that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. This is not the first time you have received this notice. Please ask for help if you are having trouble with the page move function. Thank you. Russ(talk)18:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello - I used to cut and paste quite some time ago. I have not cut and pasted the Helter Shelter (Woody Woodpecker cartoon) article, nor have I made ANY edits to it since 13:50, 12 June 2008. I am fully aware how to move articles. I am showing that you conmpleted the move today; {{db-histmerge|Helter Shelter (Woody Woodpecker cartoon)}} I am not sure what you talking about, as no cut an paste was done. I will also appreciate the discontinuance of threatening tones such as "This is not the first time you have received this notice." as this make working on wikipedia an unpleasant experience. Thank you.Oanabay04 (talk) 18:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to have offended you. It is a tedious and time-consuming task to identify and tag these pages, so it makes my Wikipedia experience less pleasant, too. --Russ(talk)12:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stones articles
hello Oanabay04 - thanks for the edits you've been making to various articles about the Rolling Stones. i wanted to explain why i redid some of your changes: when we're punctuating sentences with song titles in them, the wikipedia manual of style (and normal usage as well) requires punctuation to go *outside* the quotation marks (unless of course the punctuation is actually part of the title). you can read about that here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(titles) - that explanation is not as clear as it could be, but that is the correct way to do it. so for example we want
"Brown Sugar", "Angie", "Happy" and "Start Me Up" were all released as singles.
putting the commas inside the quotation marks is incorrect.
Hi Oanabay04. I just wanted to inform you that I moved your very nice image Image:Places.jpg to a better, less generic name, to avoid that others upload other images over it in the future: Image:Places in the Heart (1984), poster.jpg. I have updated the link to it in the article. No action needed from you.
To save you (and the rest of us who must revert your edits) some time, here's a friendly notice about Wikipedia's manual of style. Unlike some other manuals of style, WP:PUNC requires that punctuation should go outside of the quotation marks unless the punctuation itself is being quoted. Possibly a minor issue, but one that shouldn't require needless editing if you know about it. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 02:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just read the [[WP:PUNC] and must say, I am appalled at the breathtaking audacity Wikipedia has for essentially rewriting the proper American English punctuation. Every single professional publication follows the rules of punctuation and places punctuation outside of quotation marks wheb appropriate. Who in God's name decided to "make up their own rules"? I must say, Wikipedia's days are indeed numbered if they choose not to follow long-established protocol. I am not faulting you, Ward3001.
I understand that you're not faulting me. And I understand your frustration. But actually I tend to agree with Wikipedia in this case because it reduces confusion about whether the punctuation is part of the quotation. I have seen this method used elsewhere, although it certainly isn't in the majority. Like I said, it's a minor point in my opinion, but I saw no need for you to make changes that eventually would be reverted. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 23:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why thank you! That laugh is the highest form of praise. I am just putting the stub articles in place. I will be adding to them over time, and I hope others will feel free to augment the articles as well. Oanabay04 (talk) 18:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a friendly note on In the Pink of the Night. I've restored the primarysources and notability tags on this article. Take a look at WP:EPISODE -- articles on individual episodes (I assume these were TV cartoons, but short films would be the same logic) have to show real world notability and impact through independent, reliable sources. Otherwise they should be lumped together in a "list of" type article.--Fabrictramp | talk to me23:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pink Panther
Is there any real reason that you're set on having a large number of useless stubs? I don't know if it is impossible for all Pink Panther cartoons to have articles, but in the very least, the grand majority do not need much coverage. It would be much better if you were to work solely on the episode list, and try to format it after our featured episode lists. The articles can function as redirects instead of acting as perma-stubs. TTN (talk) 21:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am just putting the stub articles in place. I will be adding to them over time, and I hope others will feel free to augment the articles as well. I did this with the Three Stooges and Woody Woodpecker, to great success.
Are you familiar with the notability guideline? If not, I suggest that you read over it. You've been around for a while, so I would assume so, but looking at over fifty of your articles, I cannot see one that even asserts notability. Articles on pieces of fiction and fictional topics require information showing that they are relevant past the main work to require articles. Episode articles are generally placed within lists until such information is shown to exist. I'm guessing that some of them can possibly establish notability, but it seems doubtful for the majority. TTN (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - yes, I am familiar with the notability guideline. Do not worry; the articles will have information that they are relevant past the main work to require articles. It is just easier to create stub articles as it stirs interest and gives them exposure. In particular, please look through several Three Stooges entries. This will give you an idea what is in store.Oanabay04 (talk) 21:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point out any article out of your three main series that has established notability? I've looked through a number of the Stooges shorts, and I have yet to see anything beyond minor production notes. While it is often very easy to think that a topic can establish notability, that is not always the case. We have and have had various television series where a number of people believe that all episodes of the series are all set (the only case where that is actually happened is with The Simpsons), so a large number of episode articles have been merged, redirected, and deleted over time. If you were to work on episode lists instead, you could build a featured list, and at the same time, accomplish your goal by having the summaries set up neatly. If anyone provides information, they can easily be split out of the list and develop into an article. TTN (talk)
We're making progress, because at least these are independent. *grin* What's needed is something that is not a directory listing (IMDb and tv.com are directory listings), not a sales site (toptenreviews is basically selling the DVD), and that shows how the episode made an impact on the real world. For what that means, you might take a look at a couple of featured articles. The Abyssinia,_Henry#Reaction_and_impact section or A_Streetcar_Named_Marge#Reception might be good models. HTH.--Fabrictramp | talk to me17:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can safely say that if this were the case, then thousands of articles about films/shows that are part of a series would be deleted in a heartbeat. Some films are simply part of an assembly line. Plus, when I think "reception," i think "opinion." I will try to dig up some signifigance on some of these.Oanabay04 (talk) 19:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thousands do get deleted at AfD, and thousands more get turned into redirects. If you want the article to have a chance of sticking around, then showing the real world significance is the way to go.--Fabrictramp | talk to me19:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is definitely why I suggest working on three featured lists instead. It would be much more beneficial, and if any of the shorts do assert notability, they can be split back out at any time. TTN (talk) 20:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is something worth mentioning here. The Wikipedia:Television episodes is incorrectly applied to these Pink Panther articles. These are not television episodes; they are theatrical films that later were aired on television. Either remove the tag or replace it with a generic notability tag. Thanx!Oanabay04 (talk) 21:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please actually show how any of these can be considered notable at this point? You've just dodged the question so far. All you need to do is get one of them up to good article status, and that would probably be good enough to allow for improvement. TTN (talk) 22:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did answer the question. All the articles are notable in that they are part of a notable series of films. Some are more notable than others. As each article is developed, they will become more improved, detailed. nonw are as "notable" as Gone With the Wind" or "The Music Box," with the exception of operhaps The Pink Phink. I am not sure why this is even being discussed. i have added hundreds of articles for films that are part of a series, and at no time was their "nobility" questioned. In fact, some were championed. Oanabay04 (talk) 19:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Being part of a notable topic is not an indication of notability. Each article must establish its own notability and importance by including real world information from reliable sources. See the episodes in Wikipedia:Featured articles#Media for examples. You have not shown any improvement on any of these, so the claim that they will be improved holds no weight at all. We have millions of articles, so it is quite easy for a few hundred to be overlooked, especially stubs in a minor category. You need to actually work on them, not just state that you will. TTN (talk) 18:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My claim holds plently of weight if you took the time to look through articles I have worked long hours on. I have not shown any improvement to the Pink Pantherss because I just added these in last three days. If you took the time to look through my other contributions in the categories I have referenced, you will see that stub articles have grown over time. Monkey Businessmen, Three Little Pirates, Scheming Schemers, A Snitch in Time - all grew out of stubs. Correct me, but I believe wikipedia is an online encylopedia. Encyclopedias are reference books that have articles that can be one sentence. If you are so dead set against an article being added that is not added in completed form, soup to nuts, then let's start tagging about 80% of wikipedia.Oanabay04 (talk) 18:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
None of those are decent articles, and they're all still stubs with no real content. The first two have decent production information, but it seems like it would be fine to place in the history section of the main article if they cannot be improved. You need information as shown in our featured and good episode articles, which includes development, critical reception, controversy, popular culture, and other real world ideas. Over 99% of the articles on this site have various problems, but that is no reason to ignore a small group like this. Again, I really suggest working on featured lists, so that something of quality is guaranteed to be developed. TTN (talk) 19:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oanabay, TTN is right, those episode articles should not have been created (yet). The general notability guideline is pretty clear, you must have "significant coverage from third-party sources independent of the subject". There is currently a proposal for a more specific guideline on fiction, but even that would not support the creation of all of these articles. An episode list should (have been)be your first instinct when creating articles dealing with a TV show's episodes. First, it allows you to have a central location where you can chronicle all of the vital information for each of the episodes. Then, if a particular episode stands out (per the notability requirements) then it can be separated by itself and developed as a distinct article on that episode. Having articles that are nothing but plots is against one of our core policies; it also violates another one of our guidelines, the guideline for writing about fiction. By mass creating episode articles that fails all of these guidelines and policies, you are unintentionally undermining the spirit what it means to warrant having an article on Wikipedia. I implore you to redirect those episode titles to a centralized list, and work to develop that first (I will even help you if you need assistance in creating a viable list article that could easily become a featured list). Then I would search for resources to establish notability on any episode that might have been particularly noteworthy. Source searching should always be the first step, not the last. BIGNOLE (Contact me)19:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Points well taken.FYI, TTN, "None of those are decent articles" is rather accusatory and patronizing. As an editor and not a writer, your claim holds no weight at all. "Oanabay04 (talk) 19:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if I have offended you, but you need to understand that these are not developed articles and that there is a chance that none of them will ever develop. There may or may not be few potential featured or good articles within them, but an assertion of notability is necessary to keep them around. Are you willing to redirect these at this point and attempt to create featured lists? TTN (talk) 19:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If that is what it takes to keep these articles around and prevent them from being deleted, then of course. My goal is not to create hard feelings but rather create a comprehensive and reliable source of information with co-wikipedians.Oanabay04 (talk) 20:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The articles themselves will have to be redirected in order for this to work, so they'll no longer exist in that sense. The edit history will still exist, so they can be brought back at any time that notability is established. If that is fine with you, you should redirect them to relevant sections of relevant lists and fill in the information using Template:Episode list. You can ask for help or use featured episode lists as guides if you need them. TTN (talk) 20:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your changes to this article. Overlinking can be difficult to notice in a large article. I was hoping to encourage you to use an edit summary when you are making even minor changes to an article like this. It helps those of us who watch the article to know what was done and avoid having to check through several small revisions. Thanks! Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there is one thing I know I am seriously guilty of, it is not using the "edit summary" feature more often. I tend to make a few changes, save them, then go back to take a look. Gotta cut that out. Take care!Oanabay04 (talk) 15:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Our Gang Silent Films
Hello Oanabay04. Thanks for all the work you’ve done. I would like to contribute to the Our Gang articles and notice that you’ve done quite a bit there. Would you object to my expanding some of these articles? Particularly, the silent Our Gang films. I’ve already started on “One Terrible Day.” I don’t want to interfere with one of your projects, so please let me know. Perry Hotter (talk) 12:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Perry Hotter. Oh gosh no, by all means, please feel free to add and expand. Actually, I only really created/worked on the first 18 or so Our Gang films (up to Stage Fright (1923 film). The bulk of the entries were created by Marckd. I have cleaned up a good deal of Marckd's work, as the user's writing style is not the greatest. However, this person did lay the groundwork for these entries, so that is good. Most of the work I have done is really on The Three Stooges' films. Thanx for the kind words; greatly appreciated! And thanx for your help.Oanabay04 (talk) 13:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen what you were doing with the bullets. I have to respectfully disagree for two reasons: 1). Including the bullets within prose in an article primarily serves as decoration or aesthetic purposes. Per MOS:ICON, this is discouraged. (As for the bullets being elsewhere, like in a subway station infobox, that is not prose and they serve to illustrate the service for that station only.) 2). The NYCS claims copyright to the bullets, i.e. [2]. Wikipedia [specifically, the uploader of the images] says the icons are "in the public domain, because it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship." I don't know who is correct, but this debate signals to me that we should apply the bullets in careful circumstances. Regardless of the copyright issue, my first reason is my main objection. Tinlinkin (talk) 22:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your input.While I agree that the bullet usage can fall under decoration and aesthetic usage, i disagree on that concept for public transit. Those bullets are everywhere in the system. I have found that a great many users of the NYCS Wikipedia pages respond the notoriously intimidating system better with the bullets rather than a letter or number. As the NYCS has been pushing the color/bullet system heavily for the past 30 years, their usage brings more familiarity to each line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oanabay04 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but what would happen if Wikipedia publishes these NYCS pages into a paper encyclopedia? Would you like the appearance of pages then? I agree that the bullets would be helpful from the readers' point of view (as well as the NYCS being an intimidating system to understand), but they just don't work well in prose because they are not conventional. Books I've read about the NYCS usually do not have these bullets in the prose. You wouldn't catch publications like the New York Times doing this even if they have the capability to do so. If any more context is needed for a number or letter service, the hyperlink is there. Tinlinkin (talk) 06:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Books I've read about the NYCS usually do not have these bullets in the prose. You wouldn't catch publications like the New York Times doing this even if they have the capability to do so." Ah, but this is not a book, nor a newspaper; it is an internet link. If this becomes a paper encyclopedia or a newspaper, yes, it looks odd and out of place. Must compare apples to apples. "They just don't work well in prose because they are not conventional." This is Wikipedia, it can be edited by anyone. The polar opposite of "conventional." Thanx for your input.Oanabay04 (talk) 13:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop inserting {{NYCS-bull-small}} into prose. We are here to improve the encyclopedia, not just make aesthetic edits that break other functionality. For example, Wikipedia does exist in hard-copy print. Check out my book here... User:Acps110/Books/New York City Subway System. I still have not ordered my copy because there are many instances of {{NYCS-bull-small}} messing up the formatting. Load the book and either, click "Order book from PediaPress" and look at the preview or download the entire book as a PDF, to see the formatting errors.
Secondly is display in Google Earth. Any station article that has coordinates automatically shows up on Google Earth if the Wikipedia source is checked in the "Geographic web" section. This is part of the standard installation of Google Earth. The pop-up balloon only shows the lead section of the article with very simple rendering. It can only display text, images and links. Templates and any other stuff is not shown. For example "Canal Street is served by the , , and trains at all times." That's not useful. I simplified the display of Marcy Avenue (that version here) (among others), but now Google Earth is displaying your version with no trains listed. (Google Earth only updates from a database dump once a month.) Please stop. Acps110 (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Google Earth issue is a very different matter. "Canal Street is served by the , , and trains at all times" is bad. If an edits ruins the functionality of something else, then (Google Earth having a problem), then I will stop. As for the book, I downloaded as a PDF. Looks good; the formatting "errors" are minor.Oanabay04 (talk) 16:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Shrinkerjay.jpeg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Hammersoft (talk) 21:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Our WP:NFCC policy, which is derivative of Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy, does not permit the use of non-free imagery for purposes of depiction for living people. Mr. Robinson is in fact alive. Using File:Shrinkerjay.jpeg to depict him in the biographical article on him is not permitted. Please do not restore the image to that article. I've removed it again, and also removed the rationale on the image page since the image is, in fact, replaceable with free content. Even if we do not have free content available right now, we do not host non-free content until such time as we have free content when the person is still alive. I hope this clarifies things. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oanabay - Thanks for your help on the One Terrible Day page, I need lots of help there. But are you sure the possessive pronoun "her" should be changed to "his?" The sentence is talking about the character Farina, not the actor, Allen Hoskins. I am almost certain that the Farina character is female in this film, as is true in several of the early Our Gang silent shorts, in spite of being portrayed by a little boy. One Terrible Day was one of four "Our Gang" shorts made in Spring and early Summer of 1922 and in all of the others, Farina is a little girl. I watched the film again and actually found no real proof, but I did find a hint. Jackie cuts off her/his pigtail to use for fishing bait. The pigtail seems to indicate a female character. But I also checked with the "Lucky Corner" web site and found this statement:
The 9.5mm copy refers to him as 'her,' but it isn't an original inter-title.
I must admit; I am not sure. I was thrilled to even see any type of photo from One Terrible Day. I will defer to you on this one. Based on that you are saying with the 9.5 copy, Farina probably was first billed as a female character. They did the same for Buckwheat as first, so it is not surprising. I am not an expert on the silents, since they are so hard to come by.Oanabay04 (talk) 02:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, saw your edit at Teacher's Pet correcting the running time, and wanted to say that minutes and seconds of time are usually expressed as: 20:40. When they're stated as 20'40", it's minutes and seconds as fractions of an arc or circumference, as in longitude/latitude. I'll go ahead and fix Teacher's Pet. Thanks for all your work on Our Gang! — HarringtonSmith (talk) 16:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem about the time. I was basing the ' " format off of the one used in calculating times in The Complete Three Stooges: The Official Filmography and Three Stooges Companion book. Funn that you should have chosen Teacher's Pet. I am trying to do screen shots of the title cards from all the films, and of course, Teacher's Pet does not have any titles; just the spoken intros by Beverly and Betty Mae Crane. FYI - I added running time to all the sound shorts up until 1944 using the ' " format. I will go back and convert to : . Thanx!Oanabay04 (talk) 21:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Three Stooges
Although I'm glad to see that we have articles for each of the shorts, many of them include elements that do not comply with guidelines concerning trivia/quotes and non-free requirements. I went through the articles as I came across them and did minor cleanup, removing excessive linking, adding captions, removing flags from the infobox, etc. I think I did remove the running time from one or more articles, but must have done accidentally, feel free to revert that. For all of the screenshots, it is going to be difficult to provide a rationale that would allow for their use. For example, File:Antspantry.jpg just shows the characters, and the reader does not need to see it for the plot. Usually film articles only include screenshots for commentary on the production (for example, if there was details covering the the design of their costumes that was covered within the article, then the image would support it. For examples of how screenshots may be used in film articles, take a look at some of the recent FAs at the Spotlight department. Maybe if some of the screenshots are in the public domain, then that of course wouldn't be an issue. Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pink Panther episodes
Adding the pictures is helpful, but is there a reason you are changing the run dates? A group of IP vandals was changing it to those dates on a few pages, but I've found no evidence for episodes first run as late as 1980. —ShadowRanger(talk|stalk)15:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. The last 10 entries in the series were not released/broadcast until 1979/1980. Supermarket Pink, the final entry, was broadcast on February 1, 1980.Oanabay04 (talk) 15:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:Comeoninwaterspink.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:Fortypinkwinks.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Rayebug.jpeg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Dvdplr (talk) 11:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FAR: Real Love (John Lennon song)
I have nominated Real Love (John Lennon song) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.
--Plotfeat (talk) 19:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Micro Phonies (Stooges film). When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as the text has been restored from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Closedmouth 05:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:CallingallCursTITLE.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to move Helter Shelter (Woody Woodpecker cartoon) by copying its content and pasting it into Helter Shelter (cartoon). This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is considered undesirable because it splits the page history which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.
){kind=link}
,_poster.jpg){kind=link}
