User:Ned Scott

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


While I try to keep up to date with discussions I'm in, it's very possible for me to miss something. For this reason or any other, feel free to send me an extra poke via e-mail or AIM, for anything, trivial or important (or to just say hi).
Help track images! User:Splarka/watchimages.js Cut and paste the script into Special:Mypage/monobook.js, and you'll get a link in the toolbox (on the side bar) that lets you add all images included in an article to your watchlist. Changes to the image description page, new uploaded versions, and deletions will be displayed on your watchlist.
Wikipedia
en This user is a native speaker of English.
AF This user can make high quality audio files.
{{t|c}} This user can use and program conditional templates.
Mixer-icon.jpg This user is an audio engineer.
WikiProjects
DIGI This user is a member of the Digimon work group.
Wikipe-tan head.png This user is a participant of WikiProject Anime and Manga.
Wikiproject:Television This user is a participant of WikiProject Television.
The WikiProject Council logo This editor participates in the WikiProject Council.
Miyajima-Torii-Modified.jpg This user is a participant in
WikiProject Japan.
Gamepad.svg This user is a member of
WikiProject Video games.
Stargate-color.png This user is a member of the
Stargate WikiProject.
Schwarzbeck UHALP 9108 A.jpg This user is a member of the B.E.a.T. Taskforce.
Definition of Free Cultural Works logo notext.svg This user is a member of WikiProject Free images.
List This user proudly participates in WikiProject Lists
Graduation hat.svg This user is a member of WikiProject Classroom coordination.
Technical
Power Mac G5.jpg This user edits/views Wikipedia with a Power Mac G5 (10.5), a MacBook Pro(10.6, W 7) and an iPod touch)

sfri This user contributes using Safari.
Mozilla Firefox logo 2013.svg This user contributes using Firefox.

I am User:Ned Scott on all Wikimedia Projects with the exception of wikinews:es:User:Ned Scott. I'm in my late-twenties and live in Arizona, USA. My main focus on Wikipedia is working on articles about entertainment and fiction (particularly anime and science fiction, which is probably not a big surprise), though I do enjoy working on much more than just those kinds of articles. Lately I've been more active in meta space than in article space, focusing on discussions and technical features such as templates. I'm also very interested in applying some of the methodology of Wikipedia to other wikis around the internet, which lead me to start up WikiProject Transwiki.

Unfortunately my personal time is being consumed by some other stuff lately, and I'm not nearly as active as I once was. Don't let that stop you from leaving me a message or asking for assistance if you feel I can be of some help! I will always be a Wikipedian, and look forward to always having at least some level of contribution to this great project. I also plan on getting more active again to at least finish a number of projects/ideas that I've either had or was involved in.

Useful links


List templates

Projects

Transwiki

  • User:Ned Scott/transwiki - A rough rough draft and collection of thoughts for guidelines and advice about transwiking articles.

External contact project

Lets you find users who have external contact info. For use with WP:CATSCAN

Discussion tracking

Centralized discussion
Proposals: policy other Discussions Ideas

Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.
Notice Fiction/entertainment guideline notices
More issues and discussions at the fiction notice board
Delsort
Delsort categories
RfC/General notice
XfDs
Other


Village pump sections
Policy
post | watch | search

To discuss existing and proposed policies

Technical
post | watch | search

To discuss technical issues. For wiki software bug reports use MediaZilla

Proposals (persistent)
post | watch | search

To discuss new proposals that are not policy related. See also: perennial proposals.

Assistance
post | watch | search

To post requests for assistance not covered by the Help desk or the Reference desk

Miscellaneous
post | watch | search

To post messages that do not fit into any other category


RfCs - Art, architecture, literature and media

Talk:Death of Freddie Gray

The majority of the sources describe the protagonists as "white" or "black", but there are concerns that these distinctions offer an unneeded contrast, and arguments for advancing the use of "African American and "Caucasian" as more neutral have been voiced.

Comment with:

  • (A) for "white" and "black"
  • (B) for "Caucasian" and "African American"

Comments

  • (A) - Best is to follow the sources rather than our personal preferences. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Top Gear (2002 TV series)

Should years that presenters appeared in the series be included in the infobox? --AussieLegend () 14:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Lego Elves

"Unite the Magic" is labeled "Episode 1", and an annotation at the end of the YouTube version of the video says "Episode 2 Coming Soon" (as of late April 2015), so I thought it's going to be a series of 20-something-minute television episodes. But the next episode is not coming yet. How should I define those episode(s)? If it is a series of animated specials released irregularly, I'm going to put Template:Infobox television film instead of Template:Infobox television. JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 14:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Honorific nicknames in popular music

Should Paul Whiteman be honoured with "King of Jazz" title?DanJazzy (talk) 22:06, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:The Federalist (website)

This material was deleted under arguments of WP:COATRACK, and WP:POV. Are any of these concerns substantive to warrant non-inclusion?

An article published in Politico Magazine, titled "The HuffPo-ization of the Right" describes a number of right-wing websites and online publications, including The Federalist, The Daily Caller, Weekly Standard, Breitbart, and The Blaze.[1] Cherlin refers to targeted sites like the Washington Free Beacon and The Federalist as "seek[ing] to go deep on the issues and sway the conversation in Washington." In the article, Cherlin mentions that conservatives appreciate the new range of right-wing outlets, including Domenech’s claim that "[t]he only thing that I think is hurtful to the movement is if you didn’t have that kind of variety". The article reports that the focus of these right-wing outlets is on hardening opposition to President Barack Obama, with a view beyond the end of his second term. Domenech goes on to compare such focus with the proliferation of liberal outlets at a similar point during President George W. Bush’s tenure.[1]

References

  1. ^ a b "The HuffPo-ization of the Right". Politico Magazine. Retrieved October 3, 2014. 

Comments

  • Support inclusion - It provides context to the appearance of The Federalistin the conservative media landscape, and refers to Ben Domenech, co-founder of The Federalist, who was interviewed for this piece. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers

Should we restrict filmographies included in navboxes to directors for films and series creators for TV shows? --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Chris Claremont

Hi, I'd like to get some consensus for which picture is more appropriate for this article. I placed a new picture from 2014 in the article last year, in October. It stayed until just recently, when it was reverted to a picture from 2011, with the comment "Revert. We do not change photos simply because they are more recent. This new photo is smaller, he's not facing the camera, and his facial experession is inferior. Also, Columbia University is not called "The" Columbia University."(sic). I'm a bit confused - because in fact, my new photo is smaller vertically by 500 pixels, but much wider, and uses more pixels for his face. I also prefer the composition of it (I'll refrain from criticizing the other picture since I don't believe it's appropriate), but that's a personal choice obviously - that's why I'd like to get some input as to what sort of aesthetic is preferred - since, judging by Nightscream's revert, it comes down to aesthetics. Thank you, Tduk (talk) 23:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film

Do items, such as awards in "List of awards and nominations" articles, need to have their own WP article in order to be included in List articles?

Some relevant guidelines and MOS: WP:NLISTITEM, WP:NOTESAL, WP:LSC, WP:FAILN, Wikipedia:No_original_research#Verifiability. Lapadite (talk) 21:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force

I was looking at some of the Bollywood's list of awards and nominations and found so many unnecessary awards list such as of Tabu, Urmila Matondkar, Asin, Anil Kapoor and lots more. These list have few awards listed. I don't think these pages are neccesary. I think they should be merged with their parent article or in the filmography like Kangana Ranaut (awards and role). Lot of western articles are like that, they put all the awards in the biography page itself. @Bollyjeff, Ssven2, Vensatry, Kailash29792, and Cowlibob: What you all have to say about this?—Prashant 11:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Jimi Hendrix

Should the infobox include acid rock in its genre parameter? Dan56 (talk) 20:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Broke with Expensive Taste

Should the score from Metacritic be included in the ratings template? Dan56 (talk) 19:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Sailor Moon

Should LGBT be a main theme in Sailor Moon? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force

Proposal to remove the Bollywood Hungama Surfers' Choice Awards from all Indian film articles. As it would affect a number of articles, I would like to establish consensus before going forward with it.

Cowlibob (talk) 14:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film

Currently the last sentence at MOS:FILM#Critical response reads:
"For older films, seek reviews from the period of the film's release and the present to determine if a film's initial critical reception varies from the reputation it has today."

Proposal 1

I propose revising it to:

"For older films, use secondary sources to determine if a film's initial critical reception varies from the reputation it has today."

Betty Logan (talk) 15:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)



RFCs - Wikipedia style, referencing, layout and WikiProjects

Wikipedia talk:Article titles

Should we change:


  1. Example: "#2 comma-separated" + "#3 parenthical": Wiegenlied, D 498 (Schubert) (see Talk:Wiegenlied, D 498 (Schubert)#Requested moves)

to:

  1. Example: "#2 comma-separated" + "#3 parenthical": Wiegenlied, D 498 (Schubert)

?

The WP:RM discussion being cited was attended by almost no one, and is not authoritative anyway. WP:AT policy does not rely upon RM "precedents", especially very weak ones like that. Consensus is decided here based on what makes the most sense for our readers and editors, and there appear to be no extant objections to this form of disambiguation being used in cases where consensus determines it to be the best choice, so a defensive "citation" of this sort doesn't serve any purpose anyway. Most examples used on this page probably have a RM record on their talk pages, and anyone who cares about such an example can go look; we don't need to explicitly point them there, especially in such a redundant way.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  17:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (definite or indefinite article at beginning of name)

To save giving up on this I thought I'd have a go with an RfC.

This comes after the compilation and presentation of a number of extensive multiple RMs which, while gaining limited support, have otherwise been shot down in flames. I do not, however, consider this to be forum shopping as various of the less positive contributors have commented that the presentation of an RfC would be an appropriate route to take. Base pages for the current multiple RfC are as follows:

At personal preference I think that it would be beneficial if a decision can be made one way or another on this topic before the closure of the RMs so as to, potentially, save the effort that went into their compilation.

On the basis that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia I conducted a search on books in the form: (most OR least OR lightest OR heaviest OR tallest OR longest OR shortest) AND "in the". Results that contained a "fooest" content followed by something like an "in bar" content were, in sequence, as follows:

  1. The Most Beautiful Girl in the World
  2. The Most Misused Verses in the Bible
  3. The Most Important Fish in the Sea
  4. The Most Dangerous Area in the World
  5. The 100 Most Significant Events in American Business
  6. The Most Wonderful Doll in the World
  7. The Most Dangerous Man In The World
  8. The Most Important Little Boy in the World
  9. Vesuvius: The most famous volcano in the world
  10. The tallest, shortest, longest, greenest, brownest animal in the jungle!
  11. The Most Successful Small Business in The World
  12. Burj Khalifa: The Tallest Tower in the World
  13. The Least Examined Branch: The Role of Legislatures in the Constitutional State
  14. A short synopsis of the most essential points in Hawaiian grammar
  15. A brief summary, in plain language, of the most important laws of England concerning women
  16. Catalonia: An Emerging Economy : the Most Cost-effective Ports in the Mediterranean Sea
  17. The Politics of the Governed: Reflections on Popular Politics in Most of the World
  18. The Most Powerful Idea in the World: A Story of Steam,..
  19. Notices of the Most Remarkable Fires in Edinburgh
  20. Most Beautiful House in the World

I went through 18+ examples (not including, presumably, reprints or the "in Most of the World" example) that consistently used "the fooest" before finding one example, which happened to be at the beginning of the phrasing, which omitted the article.


My next step in research involved a web based search on grammar guide superlative

Results (with quotation of sections of relevant content) in sequence are presented as follows:

http://esl.fis.edu/grammar/rules/comp.htm presenting:

1-syllable adjectives: add -est to the adjective (plus the)

  • My sister is the tallest in our family.
  • Yesterday was the coldest day of the year so far.

... and so on

https://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/en/english-grammar/adjectives/comparative-and-superlative-adjectives presenting:

  • Superlative adjectives:
We use the with a superlative:
It was the happiest day of my life.
Everest is the highest mountain in the world.
That’s the best film I have seen this year.
I have three sisters, Jan is the oldest and Angela is the youngest.

http://www.edufind.com/english-grammar/comparative-and-superlative/ presenting:

SUPERLATIVE ADJECTIVES

Superlative adjectives are used to describe an object which is at the upper or lower limit of a quality (the tallest, the smallest, the fastest, the highest). They are used in sentences where a subject is compared to a group of objects.

Noun (subject) + verb + the + superlative adjective + noun (object).

The group that is being compared with can be omitted if it is clear from the context (final example below).

EXAMPLES

  • My house is the largest one in our neighborhood.
  • This is the smallest box I've ever seen.
  • Your dog ran the fastest of any dog in the race.
  • We all threw our rocks at the same time. My rock flew the highest. ("of all the rocks" is understood)

This text is as presented on the website and represents basic grammar.

The fourth website - http://www.learnenglish.de/grammar/adjectivesuper.html - shows that even the Germans get this right. Why can't we???


My concern is that, at present, Wikipedia presents examples of use of syntax that, if students were to emulate, would lose them marks.

I have also seen nothing similar to the current Wikipedia title presentations in contents like Britannica.


Many list type articles that contain superlatives are linked to Category:Lists of superlatives

GregKaye 15:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

Presently there is major difference with the layout of wikitables on the desktop site and on the mobile site. Most importantly, the mobile wikitable has no background color for its header cells and its border are brightly colored to the point that they are almost indistinguishable. This creates readability issues for the mobile wikitable. To illustrate this I have made a screenshot of table both in the desktop and the mobile version.
A wikitable on the desktop site
The same table on the mobile site

Therefore, I would like to propose the mobile wikitable's layout to be made the same as the desktop wikitable's, so as to have a uniform table style. Tvx1 19:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox person

Summary for the RFC listing: For non-religious BLP subjects, should infoboxes list their religion as “None” or e.g. “None (atheist)”, or something else?

Proposer: Guy Macon (talk). Posted: 00:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Places in Bangladesh)

There is a generic conventions for geographic names. But that is not clear enough for places in Bangladesh. This arose to inconsistency in names and sometimes lead to various issues. That is why a WP:BDPLACE in conjunction to WP:PLACE was proposed in December of 2014 and I think it is time to adopt it. – nafSadh did say 18:52, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Citing sources

Should all claims, even claims of the type "Paris is the capital of France" have an inline citation to a reliable source? An edit by User:WhatamIdoing and another edit by User:HaeB add the new advice partially reverted a bold change to the long-standing statement, which has been present in this guideline since Kotniski re-wrote its lead back in August 2011: "However, editors are advised to provide citations for all material added to Wikipedia; any unsourced material risks being unexpectedly challenged or eventually removed." Jc3s5h (talk) 14:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (US stations)

In the open RFC #RfC: some proper talkin' about station title conventions above, it appears that a clear majority of respondents would prefer to not treat the appearance of "Station" on a pylon or station sign as a reliable indication that "Station" is a part of the official station name. That is, Greenbelt station would be the advice of WP:USSTATION, since in official station lists (and platform signs) the station name is "Greenbelt", not "Greenbelt Station".

Proposition: Treat the USSTATION guideline on capitalization literally, only capitalizing station when a reliable source shows that it is part of the official station name; default to using offical station name lists for this purpose, except where better sources can be found. Please SUPPORT or OPPOSE with reasons. Dicklyon (talk) 03:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

What should Wikipedia's guidance be regarding commas before Jr. and Sr.? 02:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (US stations)

Should WP:USSTATION be amended? Or should we try to follow its advice per the previous consensus? or neither? Dicklyon (talk) 03:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


RFCs - Wikipedia policies, guidelines and proposals

Wikipedia talk:Article titles

Should we change:


  1. Example: "#2 comma-separated" + "#3 parenthical": Wiegenlied, D 498 (Schubert) (see Talk:Wiegenlied, D 498 (Schubert)#Requested moves)

to:

  1. Example: "#2 comma-separated" + "#3 parenthical": Wiegenlied, D 498 (Schubert)

?

The WP:RM discussion being cited was attended by almost no one, and is not authoritative anyway. WP:AT policy does not rely upon RM "precedents", especially very weak ones like that. Consensus is decided here based on what makes the most sense for our readers and editors, and there appear to be no extant objections to this form of disambiguation being used in cases where consensus determines it to be the best choice, so a defensive "citation" of this sort doesn't serve any purpose anyway. Most examples used on this page probably have a RM record on their talk pages, and anyone who cares about such an example can go look; we don't need to explicitly point them there, especially in such a redundant way.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  17:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Help talk:CS1 errors

I'm getting sick of this. HundredsThousands (Category:CS1_errors:_chapter_ignored) of articles are affected and now display errors where they once worked fine because of the recent conversion. There was no discussion, no attempt to implement this in a thoughtful way. Chapter, section, etc, are perfectly reasonable parameters to expect in newspapers, periodicals, websites, books, and many other form of citations. The workarounds are simply not reasonable: title? No, not part of the title. departments? No, that sticks it in-front of the title, not correct in any citation style. at? wtf is that?

Please fix this by making the previously usable parameters work. I'm tired of having to update dozens to hundreds of articles, many of which are good or featured, to remedy an undiscussed fuck-up. If someone "needs" this to be in RfC question format: Should these errors be fixed in the citation template or the numerous affected articles where it previously worked. - Floydian τ ¢ 21:05, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:Cite isbn

An editor has added a template informing users that the {{cite isbn}} template has been deprecated, linking to a discussion at {{cite doi}}, where {{cite isbn}} is not discussed and the closer explicitly states "there is not clear numerical majority consensus"; further, many of the arguments there don't apply to {{cite isbn}}.

Now there are editors subst-ing out {{cite isbn}}s (about a thousand). It doesn't appear to me that there is anything like a consensus in support of such a move. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Article titles

TLDR: as a general reader, what seems easier to you: USS Nevada (BB-36) or USS Nevada (1914)?

This RfC proposes to replace hull or pennant numbers in article titles with launch dates. As my views have previously been made abundantly clear, I'll present them here.

Currently, Wikipedia's ship name policy specifies that hull and pennant numbers (e.g. USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70)) be used to disambiguate ships when appropriate. This is a change from an the older policy, which used them wherever possible, but there is at least a significant minority that still favors the approach.
Why should a general reader with no knowledge about warships know that they would need to type in something like (CVN-70)? At best, this is useless jargon for non-specialists. Worse, an argument for consistency falls flat when only a minority of countries use them; we only have these numbers for American and British/some Commonwealth ships. Now:
  • With American hull classification symbols, it's a lot of unneeded fluff in the title, and WP:PRECISE should force us to drop it (unless another ship shared the same name, obviously). These numbers have been changed in a non-trivial number of cases, like the Knox-class frigate.
  • With British pennant numbers, they're reused. If you can honestly tell me what ship HMS Ark Royal (91) is without looking or guessing, I'll give you a cookie. Not a single person can argue that pennant numbers are helpful to a general reader when they type a ship name in the search bar. As my colleague Parsecboy said, "Which is more helpful to non-experts trying to find the WWII Ark Royal in the auto-fill drop down - a list of articles with (91), (R07), and (R09) as dabs, or a list of articles with (1937), (1950), and (1981) as dabs?"

So given that it's pretty apparent that we've been perpetuating a system that is completely useless to helping our readers, I'm proposing that WP:SHIPNAME be changed to mandate the use of launch dates rather than hull numbers when disambiguation is necessary. We already do this for ships that predate hull numbers, and such a system would be far easier to navigate for our readers, who (a) are why we are here and (b) again, typically have little to no specialist knowledge about ships. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment

How much control may an RFC originator exert over the discussion? Is it appropriate (or should it be so) to actively prohibit alternatives from being proposed by other users and debated in the same discussion? The RFC guidance is silent on the subject of ownership. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 12:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Siege of Kobanî

Per WP:NOICONS, Icons are not to be used in prose, in fact they are discouraged in Infoboxes also, lets stay within the guidelines, everyone is finding enough to argue about. Mlpearc (open channel) 16:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Citing sources

Should all claims, even claims of the type "Paris is the capital of France" have an inline citation to a reliable source? An edit by User:WhatamIdoing and another edit by User:HaeB add the new advice partially reverted a bold change to the long-standing statement, which has been present in this guideline since Kotniski re-wrote its lead back in August 2011: "However, editors are advised to provide citations for all material added to Wikipedia; any unsourced material risks being unexpectedly challenged or eventually removed." Jc3s5h (talk) 14:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

What should Wikipedia's guidance be regarding commas before Jr. and Sr.? 02:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources

Should articles that hold to a stricter-than-normal criteria for sources be required to notify editors of this condition for editing?

When editorials from very reputable newspapers are fine in some articles but called "poor sources" in others it strikes me that we need some clarification on the WP:RS policy. How is an editor to know that such sources are acceptable for some articles but are not acceptable for others? WP may be a volunteer project but even volunteers deserve to know when they might be wasting their time using the wrong sources.

I started a discussion at WP:VPP#How to inform editors of a variance in WP:RS standards? and would like to get WP editors who are fluent with sourcing issues to comment on this topic. The WP:RS policy page talks about sources in context and also fact-vs-opinion sources. I am sure this discussion touches on those concepts and I am not opposed to such variances in requirements but I think there are some logistical questions that need to be answered for the benefit of both editors and the encyclopedia as a whole. Please join the discussion at the VPP link above if you have anything that would help on this topic. Thank you. 104.32.193.6 (talk) 05:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Nazi gun control theory

The issue is whether the hatnote is improper in its current form.Godsy(TALKCONT) 22:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

User sub-pages

Ned Scott Ned Scott/Editcounter Ned Scott/FICT
Ned Scott/FICT/Aug07 Ned Scott/FICT/Dec07 Ned Scott/FICT/Feb08
Ned Scott/FICT/July07 Ned Scott/FICT/June08 Ned Scott/FICT/March08
Ned Scott/FICT/Nov07 Ned Scott/Infobox Digimon character
Ned Scott/Navbox/core Ned Scott/Template:Track list
Ned Scott/Template:Wpp1 Ned Scott/User categories
Ned Scott/Wikipedians who use StatusBot Ned Scott/arbcom
Ned Scott/header
Ned Scott/monobook.css Ned Scott/monobook.js Ned Scott/recent update
Ned Scott/sandbox Ned Scott/sandbox2 Ned Scott/sandbox3
Ned Scott/sandbox4 Ned Scott/sandbox5 Ned Scott/sandbox6
Ned Scott/sandbox7 Ned Scott/sandbox8 Ned Scott/subpage
Ned Scott/transwiki Ned Scott/unicode Ned Scott/watchlists
Ned Scott/watchlists/all Ned Scott/watchlists/arbcom Ned Scott/watchlists/fiction guidelines

User talk sub-pages

Ned Scott Ned Scott/Archive 13 Ned Scott/Archive 14
Ned Scott/Archive 15 Ned Scott/Archive 16 Ned Scott/Archive 17
Ned Scott/Archive 18 Ned Scott/Archive 19 Ned Scott/Infobox Digimon character
Ned Scott/archive
Ned Scott/archive1 Ned Scott/archive10
Ned Scott/archive11 Ned Scott/archive12 Ned Scott/archive2
Ned Scott/archive3 Ned Scott/archive4 Ned Scott/archive5
Ned Scott/archive6 Ned Scott/archive7 Ned Scott/archive8
Ned Scott/archive9 Ned Scott/archive current Ned Scott/sandbox
Ned Scott/sandbox/IncidentArchive405 Ned Scott/sandbox/IncidentArchive406