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.
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.
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.
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



  • 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 categories
RfC/General notice
Village pump sections
post | watch | search

To discuss existing and proposed policies

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.

post | watch | search

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

post | watch | search

To post messages that do not fit into any other category

RfCs - Art, architecture, literature and media

Talk:Heavy metal music

Should the infobox contain an image of a heavy metal band? OnBeyondZebraxTALK 15:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

In the world of eSports, its competitors seem to go by a wide variety of names. WikiProject Video Games is attempting to either standardize or come up with rules on how their article's should be named.

Some examples, to help demonstrate the variants possible. Sergecross73 msg me 19:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Phaedrus (dialogue)

The following 2 sections, section 3.3.1 and section 4.1, contradict each other on the translation of the same Greek term used in the Arts: (theia mania). Two editors believe that the contradiction should be allowed to remain in its current form without correction. In the one case, there is the recognition that the term is used differently in different contexts (as it should be in section 4.1), while in the other case (section 3.3.1) the article forces one and only one translation upon the reader without indicating the common alternate translations. Should the two contradictory sections be repaired so that they are consistent in the article on Phaedrus (dialogue). The two editors have opposed the previous correction to the article which would have removed the self-contradiction within the article in its current form. Should the current contradiction between sections 3.3.1 and section 4.1 be repaired to remove the self-contradiction currently contained in the article? Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Alienation (EP)

Should the article Alienation (EP) be converted into a redirect to the artist, Clairity?KDS4444Talk 05:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Full Service (book)

The long-standing article discusses a book whose credibility is disputed and whose topic is Hollywood stars' private lives. Someone revised the article to make it a biography of one person, who wrote just the book. It was reverted back to an article about the book. WP:notability, WP:notability (people), and WP:notability (books) should help us determine which one is more notable, the book or the author. Having two articles is suggested also. Which option do you pick?
  1. Only one article, the book
  2. Only one article, the biography of the book's author
  3. Two articles, the book and the author

--Relisted. George Ho (talk) 01:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Fa La La (album)

The sources given in the article as it stands don't seem to substantiate a notability claim for the album independent of the artist— should the album's article be made into a redirect? KDS4444Talk 04:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Shaun the Sheep Movie

Two reliable sources give different box-office figures. Box Office Mojo gives a precise figure, and Variety gives an approximate figure. The precise figure comes from studio reports. The approximate figure's origin is unattributed. Should we use Box Office Mojo, Variety, or both?
  • Box Office Mojo -- This is the standard in virtually all other modern-film articles in Wikipedia, so that we're comparing apples to apples. The Box Office Mojo figure ($83.5 million) also coincides closely with that of The Numbers [1] ($82.6 million). The Variety figure is vague and imprecise and disagrees with these other two sources. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Killing of Cecil the lion

Should the "Effect on conservation" section be restored? (or rather, should it not be removed, since its existance was the status quo)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaijin42 (talkcontribs)


  • Strong restore per WP:NPOV "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." This POV is one that is discussed by numerous reliable sources, specifically in the context of Cecil. Its removal is a blatant POV violation. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Star Wars: The Force Awakens

Should the article include the film's pre-release viewing by Daniel Fleetwood? '''tAD''' (talk) 20:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Genesis P-Orridge

Is the idiosyncratic use of s/he and h/er acceptable in this article, or should we use the person's surname? Note also this editorial comment. Semitransgenic talk. 14:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:Certification Table Entry

When a certification is based on traditional paid-for sales and a factor for streaming, there are often disputes over whether sources which quote the combined sales or the traditional sales should take precedence. Sometimes, as in Hello (Adele song)#Certifications (UK entry), one source may give both (259,000 paid for, 333,000 combined). Sometimes a more recent combined figure may be available but some editors revert to the last traditional figure. There are strong feelings about inclusion of streaming in music charts and awards but can we try to steer this conversation away from whether we approve or not in order to reach the best solution for the people actually reading the pages?

Background: Music certifications in different countries are measured using different factors and these are changed from time to time due to changes in technology. The two most significant changes were inclusion of digital downloaded songs and inclusion of streaming of songs, which have happened in some countries and not others and at different times. In general, the industry is trying to avoid the drop in headline sales which happened in the 2000s when it was slow to adopt digital downloads as sales of physical records (mainly CDs) fell off; currently, in many places, digital downloads themselves are falling while streaming is growing, so the industry is keen to incorporate streaming into charts and awards to avoid appearing in decline.

The big change is that streaming is not necessarily paid for by the end-user and so it seems wrong to some people that this is labelled a 'sale'. However, from the record company's point of view, there is still a sale to the streaming provider who then may use subscription or advertising to cover it. In some ways this is more reflective of what is being consumed than the old system where shipments were counted, as this was based on preconceptions of what might sell rather than actual demand. Btljs (talk) 10:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

RFCs - Wikipedia style, referencing, layout and WikiProjects

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

In the world of eSports, its competitors seem to go by a wide variety of names. WikiProject Video Games is attempting to either standardize or come up with rules on how their article's should be named.

Some examples, to help demonstrate the variants possible. Sergecross73 msg me 19:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Proposal: change the first sentence to "This article is about naming conventions for Wikipedia articles AND REDIRECTS" adding the words "and redirects"

Several editors have suggested that this policy does not apply to redirects. This seems counterproductive for redirects are commonly turned into articles. All the logic of the policy regarding search etc applies equally to redirects.

  • Support as proposer. Legacypac (talk) 06:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:Unreferenced

Should the current wording of this template ("does not cite any references (sources)"), that was boldly changed be reverted to its prior wording ("does not cite any references or sources")? 331dot (talk) 23:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:St. Petersburg, Florida

Question: Should the nickname, The Burg (or the 'Burg), be included in the St. Petersburg, Florida's introduction to the article and the articles nickname infobox? The term is commonly used by teenagers and adults who live in the city or around it, however the nickname is deleted every time is shows up in the article. Please indicate support or oppose of the nickname with a short explanatory paragraph. 19:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Genesis P-Orridge

Is the idiosyncratic use of s/he and h/er acceptable in this article, or should we use the person's surname? Note also this editorial comment. Semitransgenic talk. 14:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

RFCs - Wikipedia policies, guidelines and proposals

Talk:Electronic cigarette

=== Comments on reduced volts and aldehydes

Backstory: I thought it would be better to shorten the text. The misplaced text was eventually removed from the harm reduction section and I added some information to the safety section. SM stated my edit to the safety section was a "Rv pre-emptive Quackeditry". See Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Safety_claim_in_Harm_reduction. for the previous discussion.

Proposal: I propose including this text in Electronic cigarette#Safety but with better clarification. I think the reader will benefit from knowing reduced volts are generally safer than high volts and according to a report users are not exposed to dangerous levels of aldehydes. QuackGuru (talk) 21:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates

In response to a couple of instances where bot requests have been made for mass-removal of navboxes from articles on which they're not bidirectional, I wanted to double check that WP:BIDIRECTIONAL was actually a valid, consensus-backed portion of this guideline and not simply something that creeped in and stuck around—at least, before approving any more bots based on the assumption that there's consensus for it (as each subsequent bot could be affecting thousands of pages). It was added in this edit without objection or support a few years ago, and while silence can be assumed to be consensus (plus it's been a while), it would help to have a definitive answer when dealing with subsequent bot requests (at the very least). Additionally, it appears that a few edit wars have happened over the years in relation to it, possibly grounded in a false assumption of original consensus.
Main questions
1. Does the current text of WP:BIDIRECTIONAL have broad consensus as part of this guideline? ("BIDIRECTIONAL has consensus in this guideline," below)

"Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox so that the navigation is bidirectional."

— WP:BIDIRECTIONAL current text

2. Do navboxes containing a List imply that a member of the List can be treated as if it were linked from the navbox? ("List members are valid exception," below) For example, if {{Cool Stuff Navbox}} contains [[List of frozen things]], which contains [[Ice cubes]], should it be assumed that {{Cool Stuff Navbox}} can be placed on [[Ice cubes]]?

3. Can the Bot Approvals Group (BAG) assume, in the future, that there's community consensus to approve bots that reflect these guidelines without individualized consensus for each case/template? ("BAG can assume there are rarely exceptions," below) An example of such a request (actually, what prompted me to double check) is Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/KoehlBot, which seeks to remove {{Zoos}} from articles not directly listed in the navbox. Note this question is directly dependent on the consensus of #1 and/or #2, so you don't have to re-hash arguments from either of them. It's more a gauge of how strongly the result can be implemented. For example:

  • If #1 has support, AND you support this question, then we'll assume that bot requests that seek to enforce #1 (like the aforementioned example) have support by default (regardless of the navbox).
  • Similarly, if #2 has support AND you support this question, we'll by-default seek to ensure that bot requests take inclusion of a member article in a list into consideration so as to avoid accidental removal of a navbox from that member, too (unless there's consensus to the contrary).
  • Opposing this question will encourage the BAG to make sure any bot request pertaining to BIDIRECTIONAL gains some sort of individual consensus each time (e.g., on a template talk page or wikiproject). That is, we'll assume there are frequent exceptions to the guideline, which necessitates that each request should probably double check with the template's talk page and/or associated Wikiproject(s) to ensure mass removal is what's appropriate for that instance.

Thanks for your help, guys, and cheers =) --slakrtalk / 04:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Edit filter

Should the following text be added to the 'Recommended uses' section?

Except in urgent situations, new edit filters must not be set to disallow without thorough testing and a notice at the noticeboard to give other edit filter managers and the community time to review the filter for technical accuracy and necessity.[1] In urgent situations, the notice may be made after-the-fact. Prior to and during the review of an edit filter which is set to "disallow" due to an emergency, the editor placing the edit filter is responsible for seeing that the logs are regularly monitored and false positives are minimized.


  1. ^ Non-admins in good standing who wish to review a proposed but hidden filter may message the mailing list for details.
  1. Support as proposer. Sam Walton (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Caste system in India

Is the think tank publisher Brookings Institution a reliable source.-- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 22:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World's Oldest People

Should longevity biographies about individuals such as the "Oldest person in the world", "Oldest man/woman" or even the "Oldest person in nation" or within nation categorization ("Oldest person born in Scotland" or "Oldest person born in the British raj" period of India) have succession boxes? Let's try for a single yes/no voting section with a single discussion section. Any discussion about the levels of succession boxes can be done afterwards.


Hello Zppix from feedback request service here. As long as it doesnt get to long of a BOX i don't see why not. Also I recommend next time to possibly explain more in detail on what all it could be used for not just "World's Oldest People". Thanks Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 19:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Kim Jong-un

Is it permissible for this article use a non-free image of Kim Jong-un?--Jack Upland (talk) 05:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:User pages

I've been witness to several instances where editors managed to circumvent WP:UP#POLEMIC. It is my suggestion to further clarify on the policy that poetic militancy (similar to "#JeSuisCouteau", "will of the people", and "my land will not be humiliated") is not permissible. Promotion of militancy (a.k.a. "Mukawama", "Jihad") is illegal in several countries, e.g., the UK,[2][3] France,[4] Australia.[5] My understanding is that "Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying" does not require content to be illegal. However, if paraphrases about the righteousness of militancy are sometimes passable law-wise, it does not make them right for the Wiki-project. JaakobouChalk Talk 12:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)

Current language on notability of athletes includes:
Athletes from any sport are presumed notable if they have competed at the modern Olympic Games, including the Summer Olympics (since 1896) or the Winter Olympics (since 1924), or have won a medal at the Paralympic Games; e.g. Ian Thorpe or Laurentia Tan.

Should this be changed to:

Individuals who have competed at any modern Olympic Games and who have either won a medal or won at least one heat or match in their event shall generally be considered notable. Any individual winning a medal at a Paralympics may also be generally considered to be notable.

Collect (talk) 23:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Electronic cigarette

Should we remove or keep the text? Is the text redundant or different? QuackGuru (talk) 23:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)

In the lead should we use "biomedical and health information" or "biomedical information"?

Biomedical and health

  • Support MEDRS's goal is that "information is accurate and reflects current knowledge". Biomedical covers health, and this clarifies for the reader. CFCF 💌 📧 22:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy

Whether WP:NOTHERE must be included among the suggested rationales in the policy. I hate to be such a stubborn person, but I genuinely believe that the matter of policy change should not be in the hands of 2-3 a handful of regulars, even if they are 90% right. See also the discussion in #Not here not policy. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Jedediah Smith

Would this section:

In Popular Culture

  • The cowboy Jedediah in the Night at the Museum movies is said by the ship_manifesto to be based on Jedediah Smith,[2] despite the disparity between a fur trapper/explorer and a cowboy. IMBD calls the Jedediah character in the movie "Jedediah Smith", but that he "he may or may not be based off the real life 'cowboy' from the 1700's Jedediah Smith."[3] The Movie Pilot asserts that all the characters in the movie are based on real-life characters, including Jedediah, who is claimed to be Jedediah Smith.[4]
  • Wikimapia states that Jedediah Springfield of the cartoon The Simpson's is also probably loosely based on Jedediah Smith.[5]

Be acceptable under the policy WP:SELFSOURCE since un-questionable sources on pop culture are not available? This also seems to fall under the guideline of Types of Claims "Sources that are considered flawed may still be used for innocuous facts that are not subject to serious dispute." I mean, this is pop culture. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 13:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)

Possible phrasings required to support the inclusion of a clause surrounding country of origin are multiple and we have so far no consensus on what to use. For this reason I have listed the following versions as possible:
(Note: other wording is also possible, feel free to add o the end of this list)
  1. Clarification
    Do not reject a high-quality study-type because of objections to: inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, country of origin or conclusions except when they explicitly impact the quality of the source.
  2. Omission of the addition
    Do not reject a high-quality study-type because of personal objections to: inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, or conclusions.
  3. Link to extended discussion
    Do not reject a high-quality study-type because of personal objections to: inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, country of origin[1] or conclusions.
  4. Alternate clarification
    Do not reject a high-quality study-type because of personal objections to: inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, country of origin, or conclusions. However, you should consider these factors if reliable sources have specifically linked them to systematic problems in the medical literature.
  5. Another alternate clarification
    Where reliable sources have identified systematic problems in the medical literature associated with specific regions or countries it may impact the quality of the source. (Without including <ref></ref> tags.)


  1. ^ see closing comments at here.
  • Support 1 or 2 - Oppose 3 Adding the link will result in noone reading the content and the entire sentence losing its meaning with new time-consuming debates blossoming. My reading, and I think the only sensible one is that the RfC overwhelmingly supported not including the statement on the basis that is was a hypothetical situation that had never occurred. CFCF 💌 📧 11:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories

I propose a small change of the first sentence of section "Unwarranted promotion of fringe theories". The change is "have in the past used" ---> "regularly attempt to use". -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 04:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Electronic cigarette

RFC: Are these sources the same?

There has been removal of a referenced claim from the article.[6] During a move the claim "and there is relatively low risk to others from the vapor." was removed. The edit comments says "remove duplication". There is a talk page section on the topic found here.[7].

The sources in question, both agencies are part of the UK department of health NHS Smokefree site from the British National Health Service and the PHE Report from Public Health England.

Policies that control WP:VER WP:RS and WP:MEDRS AlbinoFerret 06:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

User sub-pages

User talk sub-pages