User talk:EEMIV/Archive10

This is a talk page archive. Please do not edit its contents.
If you'd like to get in touch with me, please leave a new message on my current talk page --EEMIV

Requesting Help with an article

I was asked to review the article ''The Masks of Time'' and tell the author User:Captain-tucker what I thought. I thought that the article, parts of it anyways, was written from an in-universe perspective and said so. If you have the time, could you review the page, and tell me what you think?

Here's what I said I thought was wrong with the page:

My reasons for declaring this article {{In-universe}}

I know I'm not the most experienced or anything, but here goes:

The Plot summary is written from a perspective too much in universe. This will not be in accordance to WP:INUNIVERSE. An article for wikipedia should be from as realworld of a perspective as you can make it. (look who's calling the kettle black...)

Characters are Fine. I'd put in more details though. What were their roles in the book, not just their jobs. For an example see Artemis Fowl (series): Characters.

The theme of a book is the unifying subject or idea of a story that the author writes into the settings of the story. What you have there should go into a category labeled reception (or criticism), or something

Awards are fine.

External Links are fine. Add in references; for a good ref cite the book itself. Put quotations in their own sections with other miscellaneous information from the book or websites (like the reception or critisms)

Thank you for your help,

Cdmajava talk 02:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... re: rm

It is an engine, please do a little researching before you make assumptions. 98.226.32.129 (talk) 08:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maintain a WP:CIVIL tone. The infobox calls for a singular overall engine, not the various componentized/specialized bits. Euphoria is integrated into LucasArts' Ronin; it doesn't warrant mention in the infobox. --EEMIV (talk) 11:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Starfleet Academy

1st off, the article does mention that ex astris scientia was the name of Bernd Schnieder's website, which is a prominent star trek resource. That, as I understand it, has been there a while, without being considered promotion. Wouldn't a link to the said site, combined with its tie in to the article, be appropriate?

Clone trooper

In response to this

I dont understandwhy you undid my edit,there is a lot more stuff that this article needs and I will continue to edit this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Halo 31887 (talk • contribs)

The material you added was uncited trivia. As uncited or as trivia, it doesn't belong at Wikipedia; being both, it deserved a quick deletion. --EEMIV (talk) 15:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not trivia, this is show in the movies Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith were there is a clear distinction between them by color on their amror which clearley is shows thier rank.s. User:Halo 31887 15:49, 21 September 2008

Yeah, that's WP:TRIVIA. Take a gander at WP:NOT#INFO, WP:PLOT, WP:WAF for starters. --EEMIV (talk) 21:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can give you a source, read this: "Clone troopers were fully encased in hard white armor, their identical faces concealed behind a t-shaped visor. In the first units, color-coded flashes on the armor denoted rank, with green troopers being sergeants, blue being lieutenants, red being captains, and yellow being commanders. The clones designated for command duty were specifically trained in that capacity." - http://www.starwars.com/databank/organization/clonetroopers/index.html Star Wars.com Databank]

or see

Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith, Labyrinth of Evil novel, Guide to the Grand Army of the Republic, Complete Visually dictionary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Halo 31887 (talk • contribs)

Please don't post on my talk page again until you actually read and understand the policies and guidelines linked above. I am challenging the notability and non-trivial nature of the material you want to add -- not its verifiability. There are lots of verifiable facts out there -- the color of President Bush's favorite shoes, whether Luke Skywalker parts his hair to the left or right, how many bricks are in the building outside my window -- but they aren't notable enough for inclusion at Wikipedia. --EEMIV (talk) 22:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will carefully read over this, and get back to you User:Halo 31887 22:26, 21 September 2008

Ok,What can I do to improve this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Halo 31887 (talk • contribs)

Find, add, and cite information that examines clone troopers from a real-world perspective. Was the costuming inspired by real-world armor? Did the artists attempt to change the clone trooper armor's appearance in Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith to appear to "lead in" to the stormtrooper armor of the original trilogy? What sort of motion capture did ILM use to help animate the characters? How well did the clone trooper action figures sell compared to other toys marketed for the films' release? How did the clones' role change across the movies' various drafts -- did clone troopers appear in the 1970s Star Wars scripts, or were they created only when Lucas sat down specifically to write the prequels? etc. Take a look at the articles on Jabba the Hutt and Padme Amidala for examples of well-done Star Wars character articles. --EEMIV (talk) 22:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wire Interview with David Simon Re: Bill Rawls

Hello,

Regarding your latest edit on William Rawls, I'm not sure why you're calling an interview with David Simon an unreliable source. Do you think the guy behind that website made up that interview or something? That site has some shortcomings, but I don't see what's wrong with referencing the interview with Simon. Thanks! --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 22:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is posted to an AOL member page, which does not meet the requirements of WP:RS. If the AOL page is a transcript of an interview done elsewhere with an actual publication, TV show, etc. then cite that source. I don't object to the information -- I think it's worth including -- but I object to the sourcing. And in the absence of a citation substantiating the claim that the scene has "led to speculation," it shouldn't be there; the plot summary description of the scene in the interim will have to suffice. --EEMIV (talk) 22:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hi, earlier today I edited the article In a Mirror, Darkly and you deleted my edit. I am new to editing Wikipedia and I don't know why. Please enlighten me. -Techno.Matthew —Preceding unsigned comment added by Techno.matthew (talk • contribs) 02:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Links to YouTube are generally frowned upon, and the content itself was trivial. --EEMIV (talk) 02:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sith

Somewhat over-zealous editing of the reference to Force Unleashed in the Sith article. The general addition was relevant. If you thought I had drifted into Original Research, then you could have just trimmed it, instead of a blanket delete and a tick-off message. It's this jumped-up, power-crazed administration that makes Wikipedia editing so hard to get into. Chill out. 193.194.132.78 (talk) 15:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin. Rather than posting this unnecessary message on my talk page, your time would have been better spent finding and citing a reliable source for your otherwise original research about the Sith in The Force Unleashed. --EEMIV (talk) 15:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statements which are doubtful but not harmful should be tagged with 'cite' tags. Only claims which are harmful, or those which have unresolved 'cite' tags should be deleted (paraphrased from the policy links that you so kindly provided me). I accept that posting this message is unnecessary, my time is ill-spent, and I have not digested enough of the vast Wikipedia bureaucracy machine in order to add anything worthwhile to it. In return, I respectfully suggest you tone down your editing style and cut fledgling editors some slack - as, according to the policy articles you quote, your edits are deemed over-zealous. 193.194.132.78 (talk) 16:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who died before the age of 30

It appears obvious now that the page List of people who died before the age of 30 is headed to deletion. I support its deletion myself. But this has given me an idea. Do you think it would make sense to have a set of categories called "Age x deaths," all in a parent category called "Deaths by age?" That seems like a better idea. This way, there would be no worry where to draw the line as to what age is "significant" as an age of death, and all ages people live to can possibly be included. There would be no need for one person to create all these categories in one day - they could be built gradually over time. We already have categories like 1949 deaths. Why can't we do the same with age? I would like some input. Sebwite (talk) 22:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People ganging up to disrupt an article

Hi,

I found you at Wikipedia:Editor assistance. If you can spare a few minutes of your time helping out at Indo-Aryan loanwords in Tamil, I would be thankful.

I am developing an article on words borrowed by Tamil from Indo-Aryan languages. I am citing a standard authoritative lexicon from which I find the words that are borrowed before including them at Indo-Aryan loanwords in Tamil. There are a few people who seem to be intent in damaging the article by adding "cite" tags, "disputed" and "dubious" tags for the article and threatening to delete it within 24 hours.

Could you please help?

Thanks. Kris (talk) 18:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article HK-47

Regarding the citation needed for the sentence:

"In a more out-of-the-way war of the Star Wars universe, HK-47's original design, HK-01, caused the Great Droid Revolution that consequently led to the increased design of ion and other anti-droid weaponry."

do you think we should just removed this sentence entirely for the sake of credibility, seeing as how it is more a tidbit of trivia than need to know information about the actual character? The article will look more credible without the 'needs citations' notice at the top, plus this was the only citation that was requested.

I did search for a more reliable source however was not able to find one, I doubt one exists.

Thanks for your help.

--Freikorp (talk) 08:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial Armour

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Imperial Armour, which you proposed for deletion, because I think that the deletion of this article may be controversial. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! JGHowes ^talk 02:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

star trek doctor

Please do not edit this article until you have read WP:WAF and taken a look at the policies linked above. Thanks! --EEMIV (talk) 02:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

im reviewing those pages, fairly new to this, just adding info as i met some of the cast at the experience in vegas; just fyi these wiki notices appear on the previous version of the doctor" "This Star Trek-related article or section describes an aspect of Star Trek in a primarily in-universe style. Please rewrite this article or section to explain the fiction more clearly and provide non-fictional perspective.

The plot summary in this article or section is too long or detailed compared to the rest of the article.

Please edit the article to focus on discussing the work rather than merely reiterating the plot. (November 2007)

This section may contain original research or unverified claims. Please improve the article by adding references. See the talk page for details. (July 2008)"

it is quite wordy and more of doctor episode synopsis, rather than the character, and real world non fictional perspective

cheers!

66.229.212.172 (talk) 02:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naomi Wildman

I'm not going to go reverting anything...but the Naomi Wildman article was had sources and cites, I should know, I added them. Lots42 (talk) 16:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding? The article was entirely plot summary, save for a single sentence about different actors. There wasn't even a "References" section, with no citations -- or even references in the text -- to even one third-party sources to establish notability. --EEMIV (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Revan.jpg

Actually, I do prefer this one to the one currently in the infobox, but perhaps I was a bit hasty there, apologies. I stand by my reversions of your unilateral redirects, though; you personally may feel that these articles do not meet guidelines, but here at Wikipedia we work on consensus and discussion, and it is considered courteous to leave a note on the page and to initiate a discussion on the talk page of the article, as well as the talk page of the relevant WikiProject if the page is not widely watched (as seems to be your usual target). I will revert my addition of the superfluous Revan image to the article. GlassCobra 13:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to offer the snide "here at Wikipedia". If you can offer third-party sources to substantiate or justify your restoration of obviously in-universe plot summary crap, that's great -- but, you didn't. And as I posted on your talk page -- and where I would have preferred you post your response, per the big freakin' banner at the top of this page; thanks for noticing -- the responsibility for meeting requirements of WP:GNG and WP:RS are on the person adding/restoring material, and you didn't even make a stab at meeting those. And if you're big on the talk-page component and making a case for these articles' retention, why didn't you post something beyond the edit summary? If your criterion for inclusion at Wikipedia is "preservation of information", you really do need to take a break and look at the policies we use "here at Wikipedia". --EEMIV (talk) 13:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't intending to be snide, though I can't say the same about your recent comments. Apologies for not noticing your banner, I'm used to leaving messages on others' pages and don't really like responding on my own page. My reasons for restoring your redirects are simply to preserve the pages themselves -- if they're redirects, anyone not familiar with MediaWiki will not know how to add additional material or sources. If the AfDs decide that the pages should be merged, that'll have to do. On the case of Darth Malak, though, I do strongly disagree with your characterization -- like Revan, Malak appears in several other Star Wars media besides the game, comics, action figures, etc. He in particular deserves a standalone much more so than the other NPCs. GlassCobra 14:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

so your a hypocrite

you undue my chabnges, but then suddenly you say it shouldnt be going to that article, im sorry but your the one who put it there to.--Jakezing (talk) 11:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? The only article we've had overlapping edits on in the last month is the talk-page for The Force Unleashed, where you posted some random comment not even about the article at all that another editor removed. --EEMIV (talk) 11:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Lumpawarrump

In response to this

I undid your revision on this article. Blanking a page and adding a redirect without prior consultation with fellow Wikipedians is not the way to do this kind of things. If you think this article should be deleted (or merged), start an AfD about it. Please note that I do think you made some valids points when you asked for deletion, but doing things all by yourself is IMHO wrong. Regards Ksempac (talk) 13:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In lieu of a barnstar

So you're not into Barnstars and Wikilove all that much, it appears, judging from your userpage. I'd like to present you with some possibly worthy addition to your LOL diffs section and I may yet do so when I come across something extraordinary. Anyway, having watchlisted many SW character list articles from when I tagged them, I've been noticing your efforts to clean up those Star Wars character articles. Needless to say, you're one absolutely great editor and that compliment goes beyond my mere agreement with your edits. Please keep it up. Everyme 05:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd forgotten about the "LOL diffs" -- it was a stress-valve for me to keep track of the more outlandish things a former editor wrote. But it's gone now. As for barnstars, I just don't flash them around. Regardless, though, thanks for notice! --EEMIV (talk) 13:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, had I known the minor SW character section was going to be mashed into one big article, I wouldn't have spent virtually my entire Sunday working on it and cleaning it up. Oh well. sixtynine ^{• speak, I say •} 07:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's still plenty of work to do. Tedious things like fixing double redirects, for one (although I think these are such unlikely search and click-through items that I'm not sweating it all that much -- at least until I can figure out how to get AWB to help me). There are also a bunch of stand-alone character articles that should be merged/blurbed and redirected into that list. --EEMIV (talk) 13:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

not joining in the acclamation quite yet, but I would like to know just where consensus has been obtained for all this. DGG (talk) 22:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here. Everyme 11:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everyme, you might want to pay some attention to the third letter there. That's the part I asked for. I see the B well enough. DGG (talk) 03:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

In response to this

okay. I understand. I just wanted to make a joke. sorry. come to my talk if you want to rant about something random. by the way, do you play jedi academy? MidKnightHunter (talk) 19:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yeah!

In response to this

I don't get why people yell at me when I apologize. it's my third day on Wikipedia. cut me some slack, possum. wouldn't you agree? MidKnightHunter (talk) 20:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

prod

Prod is only for uncontroversial deleteions, & most character deletions are controversial. Why don't you suggest merges instead--I'm willing to support a merge for a good many of the articles you prodded, if it does not cause major loss of content. I agree some of them might not really be appropriate for individual articles. I rely on you, though, to suggest where to merge, and then wait for consensus for them. If you need help in the discussions, let me know. DGG (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, most of the merge-worthy characters I hit upon today have been merged; the ones I prodded are single-appearance, insignificant characters whose presence -- and inclusion at Wikipedia, even in a List of... -- is trivial. I'm fine redirecting those if there's an appropriate target, but probably not any sort of merge for their crufty content. --EEMIV (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it rather pointy and asking for difficulties to do something like this without prior consensus obtained. I remind you people have been topic-banned for massive redirects without consensus. Can you indicate where it is? I'm trying to decide how to deal with this. I've sent you an email DGG (talk) 22:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it rather snide to bring up the prospect of a "topic ban" for an editor who's received barn stars for contributions toward a particular topic. Every Star Wars character List of X received a post on its talk page, I brought it up on the WikiProject talk page, and there was all of one query on the work-in-progress talk page. I have no interest in talking to you over the phone or e-mail; not just the content but also the process of working on Wikipedia should be "open source". --EEMIV (talk) 02:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Echo EEMIV's reply. DGG, you really shouldn't resort to this kind of intimidating language. Please make your point against merging/prodding by bringing up reliable, third party sources for those articles rather than this implicitly threatening tone. Consider me surprised that you of all people would stoop so low as to drop word-bombs like "topic ban" in the face of laudable work on improving the encyclopedia. Everyme 11:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You make a new friend?

Someone with a proxy loooooves you. :) Protonk (talk) 04:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems someone is a bit fired up. Maybe you should request page protection until this guy gets bored. \ / (⁂) 05:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

looks like they're hitting several people, not just him. HalfShadow 05:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I only see him and User talk:Eusebeus getting hit on my watchlist. What other rank deletionists are getting new friends? Protonk (talk) 05:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd seen at least three, but I freely admit I may be wrong; they're blipping to new IPs so fast. HalfShadow 05:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Things that go bump in the night.... I slept through all this excitement! --EEMIV (talk) 10:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Weapons of Star Trek#Bat'leth What trivia?

I'm physically describing the weapon. HalfShadow 19:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kirk

I removed the fictional descriptor from Kirks entry again.

I have made this change many times and it is persistently undone. A fictional character does not require the word "fictional" as a modifier. It is redundant.

Now there is..."high energy" between two groups of critics regarding the ST universe and other such fantasy realms. The entries, as per the warning message at the head of this article, must not take on a tone of factual reality or history. The "big fans" are over-zealous this way. The "not so big" fans tend to reject all contextual sentiment of reality.

Passions aside(?), the use of the word fictional is incorrect. It is not used in any of these entries for fictional characters or in any that I can find:

"Prince Hamlet is the protagonist in..." "Frank Hardy is the older of the two Hardy brothers in The Hardy Boys..." "Grendel is one of three antagonists, along with Grendel's mother and the dragon, in the Anglo-Saxon epic poem Beowulf..."

I don't care about, and didn't even notice, the triviality of a "fictional" label. I reverted your edit because you also inexplicably not only removed a cited source, but also replaced it with weasely, speculative phrasing about an "apparent" casting decision. Why on earth would you do something like that?I'm fine with the truncated lead, but please go restore or replace the reference you for whatever reason deleted and ditch the useless and wholly unnecessary speculative text. --EEMIV (talk) 19:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nanoprobe (Star Trek)

I appreciate you wanting to rid Wikipedia of material that may not obviously meet a certain standard but luckily we work on consensus so please don't simply delete articles especially if they have recently survived AfD. -- Banjeboi 02:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is non-notable cruft. --EEMIV (talk) 03:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To some ... see WP:CRUFT2. -- Banjeboi 13:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Exchange (crime syndicate)

Please do not create a redirect to an article that literally doesn't even mention the redirected term, let alone offer any information about the topic, as you did with the above title. If you want to delete the article, or merge the information to the other article and THEN redirect, I absolutely do not mind in the least, but nobody is served when you send users to a page without even cursory information on the subject. Propaniac (talk) 02:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. "Delete and redirect" is a frequent outcome at AfD without the requirement or suggestion of material being merged; skipping AfD and going straight to the redirect isn't that big a deal, particularly when clearing out cobwebbed cruft left sitting around. It's one less AfD or prod-delay to wait around for. --EEMIV (talk) 02:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may be common because the chosen redirect target almost always already has information about the redirected topic. If that's not the case, then everyone involved is ignoring the guideline WP:REDIRECT#What needs to be done on pages that are targets of redirects?, which clearly begins:

We follow the "principle of least astonishment" — after following a redirect, the reader's first question is likely to be: "hang on ... I wanted to read about this. Why has the link taken me to that?". Make it clear to the reader that they have arrived in the right place.

According to the guideline, the redirected topic should be mentioned near the beginning of the target article, which I don't even care about; that's why we have the ctrl-F function. If you had inserted a single sentence into the target article that said something like, "The Exchange is blahblahblah," I would be fine with that. And I don't know how you could read what I wrote as saying that there's anything wrong with changing the topic to a redirect without going through a prod or AFD; I do that all the time. I just check that the user's going to find something at the redirect target first. Propaniac (talk) 02:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the difference is, I don't care whether users find information about, e.g., something as meaningless as "the Exchange" from KOTOR; it's just too trivial to mention. Rather than wait for an AfD or prod, the path of least resistance (I don't care about "least astonishment," at least for such an unlikely search term) is simply to redirect it to the larger work in which the topic appears. Thanks for your notes, but I don't plan to alter my editing habits. If it helps assuage your concern (if there is any), most of the time I do opt for a prod or AfD. --EEMIV (talk) 02:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know and care nothing about Star Wars; whatever The Exchange is, I will never ever need or want to know in my lifetime (I found the redirect while working on cleanup for The Exchange disambiguation page). But if you're just deciding "I personally think this is trivial, so I'm going to effectively delete it so others can't read anything about it if, for some ungodly reason, they look it up," that's making the wiki less useful for no good reason (or even a bad reason that's nevertheless supported by policy/guidelines). It takes all of fifteen seconds, if that, to post a "non-notable" prod, and only a moment longer to add a sentence to another article so that if someone does look up the topic, they can at least get a basic definition. Propaniac (talk) 02:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, hell, {{subst:prod|[[WP:N|Non-notable]].}} is fewer characters to type than most redirects, and less effort than copy-pasting the title of the redirect target into a redirect template. Propaniac (talk) 02:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good work

Well I couldn't make it blue, but for great work on Star Wars: The Force Unleashed‎ and its promotion to GA. I award thee a Personal user award! Drink up, you deserve it! Black ngold29 00:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a big glass. Many thanks! --EEMIV (talk) 03:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Query

EEMIV, Since all you did on my last edit to Star Trek was to remove two of my three citations, I'll let the matter rest. I may have too much of a fan-convention or one-foot-in-universe perspective. But here's my thought. If the main citation for supporting an assertion meets strict criterion for a reliable source, does a supplementary/secondary citation also have to do so? In law, there is a concept of "corrobating evidence" meaning "Supplementary evidence that tends to strengthen or confirm the initial evidence". WP's own example is "For example, W, a witness, testifies that she saw X drive his automobile into a green car. Y, another witness, testifies that when he examined X's car later that day he noticed green paint on its fender." My second and third citations were of this kind, corrobating evidence.

Regarding allusions, according to the American Heritage dictionary "Allusions usually come from a body of information that the author presumes the reader will know" as in allusions to Shakespeare presume knowledge of Shakespeare. OK, the WP:NOR guideline says the source must directly support your conclusion. In an allusion, the knowledge is presumed known to the reader as a premise rather than argued for as a conclusion. Not good enough even as "corrobation"?

In the case of fan-sites, consider this analogy. If a poll shows that 80% of Oregonians believe in God, it does not prove God exists (at least certainly not to me) but it does indeed prove that...80% of Oregonians believe in God. By the same thinking, a Trek fansite is obviously NOT a good source for assertions about the biography or personal thoughts of Gene Roddenberry. That must come from reliably published material, and would certainly be a violation of WP policy. But it would seem that fansites (or in this case fan comment at amazon.com) are a pretty good source for assertions about...what fans think and feel. Admittedly that could be construed as OR as well if in fact no one has statistically tallied up the fan statements.

But if the primary citation meets strict WP:OR standards, is it harmful to provide corrobation in the form of allusion or direct evidence on the web?

Thinking out loud, --WickerGuy (talk) 05:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

is it harmful to provide corrobation?

No

...in the form of allusion or direct evidence on the web?"

An allusion is not appropriate corroboration on Wikipedia. Fan responses from Amazon or bulletin boards or fan sites are just fan noise. Neither qualifies as a source.

You have over the last few days displayed substantial lapses in your understanding of, or at least abidance by, WP:V and WP:RS; they seem at odds with your (and sometimes even my) intuitive, everyday notions of sourcing. Regardless, please take the time to review Wikipedia's policies and guidelines regarding what is expected of the sources the project cites. --EEMIV (talk) 05:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Referring you to WP policy on Notability of Fiction

EEMIV, The following is direct quote from WP:FICT I have removed the links, and added some emphasis

Self-published sources

Often, sources that would not meet the strictest criteria of reliability can provide important insights for fictional subjects. This is most true of reviews. Fan sites or popular culture sites that fall short of some of the criteria in Wikipedia:Reliable sources can often be used as primary sources for their own views on a work of fiction, as per the policy on use of such sources, self-published and other questionable sources. This is particularly true if the sites are themselves notable [ex astris scientia on Trek for example-Wickerguy], and thus if their viewpoints are significant enough to be included as part of providing a neutral point of view on the subject. As a result, substantial coverage in sources that are significant but not necessarily reliable sources can often be used to establish notability.

For example, although Television Without Pity probably fails to meet our standards for a reliable source, they notably provide detailed reviews of every episode of numerous television series. These reviews can be cited as evidence of what TWoP, itself an important site with an important point of view, thinks about shows. [Fans on amazon.com would fit this criterion as well- WickerGuy] Use of such sources, though it does not meet the strictest available standards of sourcing, is often viewed as an acceptable way to establish notability in this area.

Editors should check specific WikiProjects for that type of fiction as they may provide a list of sources that have been determined to be reliable through community consensus [Ex astris Scientia again - WickerGuy]. Editors should also remember that though such sources can provide evidence of a topic's notability, they are not, in the long term, sufficient to base an article on, and that more reliable sources should be actively sought.

Frankly, I think this vindicates the soundness of the majority (if not all) of the material I've done in the past few days, although it may require some careful rewording or thought about it's appropriate placement and/or length. But I think it shows my usages don't at all violate my "intuitive, everyday notions of sourcing" and my intuitions have been correct.

BTW, having reviewed your user page, I see you are indeed more familiar with Star Trek than I gave you credit for. Congrats for getting a few articles promoted to GA and for your barnstars. Obviously, you overall have a very good command of what you are doing.

Regards, --WickerGuy (talk) 15:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caveat/Qualification

The page I cite is a proposed guideline, not an established one. However, it is the policy that you cite on your user page that you want Star Trek articles to adhere to!! --WickerGuy (talk) 15:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see no basis -- e.g. an article about that web site -- for the claim that Ex Astris is notable/significant, nor a community consensus that it is a reliable source. It's simply a fan site, and while exhaustive isn't all that special vis-a-vis Wikipedia's sourcing policies. And the only people who care what Amazon.com reviews have to say are Amazon.com reviewers -- there's not even an appearance of consistency or reliability among fickle users. Show me an FA or even a GA that directly cites Amazon.com review #s and maybe I'd reconsider.

Beyond the sourcing topic, the other reason I've removed some of your material is the clearly non-npov language. Please be mindful of that as you continue to edit.

I point toward WP:FICT mainly for the underlying idea that a topic needs to be the subject of coverage by multiple reliable third-party sources. Exceptions from that are probably a reason it isn't a policy.

I find this exchange tedious. If you have reliable sources to cite in adding information to an article, then go for it. If I disagree with the information or the source, we can take it up on article talk pages. --EEMIV (talk) 16:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quik Factual Note on Ex Astris Scientia

Within the WP community, Ex Astris Scientia has been cited as a source on all of the following WP Trek related articles (and many many more)

 Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Technical Manual 
 Memory Alpha 
 Schisms (Star Trek: The Next Generation) 
 Physics and Star Trek 
 Thine Own Self 
 Defiant class starship 
 Star Trek: The Animated Series 
 USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-E) 
 Star Trek Gamers 
 Yesterday's Enterprise 
 Sub Rosa (Star Trek: The Next Generation) 
 Saber class starship (Star Trek) 
 The Schizoid Man (Star Trek: The Next Generation) 
 Loud as a Whisper 
 Duet (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine) 
 Star Trek: The Original Series

Again, this is not a complete list.

Outside of the WP community, Ex Astris Scientia has won more awards than any other Trek fansite (admittedly from other fansites). This list of awards on page one of fourteen begins at http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/awards.htm. I would regard this as an indication that there is community consensus that it is a reliable site at least for the limited purposes described in WP:FICT.

Regards,

--WickerGuy (talk) 18:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I started from the bottom of your list -- the EAS link in the TOS article is because it hosts a copy of some primary source. I know from editing the 1701-E that it similarly hosts a primary source. Regardless: unless EAS garners notability from outside the self-aggrandizing and mutual-masturbatory fansite community, its original, EAS-generated content (if the distinction helps) isn't reliable. And, frankly, I'd feel more comfortable without even the primary source-host links. Anyway, another article -- the ranks/insignia ones -- point toward a fan site as an easier-to-see replication of content otherwise published in books. As a shortcut, that's fine -- but that fansite itself isn't cited as the source.

Anyhow, thanks for the heads up that I should start whacking at these articles' citations to an unreliable source; I'll get started on removing them once Thanksgiving break is over.

Now please stop posting on this page; if any further content/sourcing disputes arise, we can address them on the article talk pages. --EEMIV (talk) 03:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endor

Yeah, I was kind of caught up in the moment after reading Star Wars: Technical Commentaries rather one sided and lengthy argument. Wikipedia is not the place for that sort of thing. Sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.130.45.249 (talk) 20:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jabba the Hutt talk page

Are you honestly telling me that you don't see the obvious correlation between the two? I've already explained the phonetic limitations as for each language; the words don't just sound similar, but nearly identical! WP:SYNTH would be adding the following text to the article (or something similar): He looks like a toad, which is a possible explanation for the origin of his name, as it means "toad" in Russian. On the other hand, I've only added several words in parentheses, which don't even add up to construct a complete sentence (as it is intended to be a part of another sentence) and constitute a mere compilation of seemingly related facts (but without the explicit suggestion thereof). As for WP:TRIVIA - you seem to miscomprehend the very essence of this guideline, as I previously told Alastairward: it doesn't prohibit adding facts in the form of prose (as appropriate for any encyclopedia). It's an intriguing coincidence and I'm merely pointing at the translation next to the comparison to a toad (and between you and me, you have to be blind not to see that Jabba is a giant toad combined with several other creatures - but the overall facial features are toad-like). Why can't you just be reasonable about it? NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 19:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has any reliable source made this same claim? Protonk (talk) 19:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it's an intriguing coincidence - Intriguing to whom? Please cite a source other than yourself -- otherwise, it's just WP:OR. And, look, a coincidence -- this is not encyclopedic content. --EEMIV (talk) 19:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which claim??? Are you blind??? I'm trying to explain here in every possible manner that I'm merely putting the facts together, letting the reader decide. I've already provided the necessary links to the respective WP policies - please take the time and read in depth. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 19:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Collecting disparate facts and presenting them as a conclusion waiting to be drawn is just as bad as presenting them and drawing the conclusion explicitly. There is a difference between comparing information presented in sources and comparing information drawn from editor experience. In this case we have only your word that both the name Hutt was meant to be "toad" and Jabba was meant to look like a toad (he didn't look like a toad to me, originally). What we need is some reliable source saying that the coincidence you described was a deliberate connection. Protonk (talk) 19:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NAAGF, rather than this conversation duplicating itself both here and on the article talk page, please go back to the latter. If you can cite a source that claims that this coincidence isn't a "coincidence," then go ahead and add/cite the claim in the article. Otherwise, whether intriguing or not, it's unencyclopedic minutiae nor worth including here. Wookieepedia might have use for it, though. --EEMIV (talk) 19:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - I've moved the discussion here. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 20:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Original research in Indiana Jones

Hello. I am responding to your kind post in my Talk Page. It has always puzzled me when someone requires a "reliable source" for texts in an article about a book, a recording, or a movie. Are these (media) not considered to be the primary, foremost (i.e., reliable) sources themselves? If a movie or a book are readily viewable, say, in a Library, why should one disregard them and look elsewhere for someone's written opinions or reviews instead? To read a book, to listen to a recording, or to watch a movie, and write about what one has read, heard, or seen, just cannot be regarded as "original research", as anyone can verify the validity of any assertions by doing just the same: read, hear, or watch it (just IT, and no other materials). That is, by the way, one of the basic pillars of the Scientific Method: the ability to duplicate any observation anywhere, anytime, given the proper conditions. If you have the time and patience, I'd appreciate your comments on the WP:NOR policy in view of the above reasoning. Perhaps it ought to be revised, or expanded? Regards, --AVM (talk) 22:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This addition:

Adding those locations together resulted in a helter-skelter, absurd combination of Mayan pyramids lying in the midst of the Amazonian jungle, "next" to the Iguazu falls.

Claims that the content is "helter-skelter [and] absurd" is clearly not from a neutral point of view; the underlying implication (articulated in the edit summary) is that "Spielberg is completely ignorant of Geography". Hence the removal. I'm sure you can find a third-party source who adopts a similar perspective, and perhaps even a similar tone; if so, cite it. --EEMIV (talk) 22:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FICT

Hey, saw your name on the Gavin RfC and figured you might want to take a gander at the changes made to WP:FICT (and the talk page for some good discussion about them). It is really shaping up to be a functional inclusion guideline but it would be good to get some more eyes on it. Drop by and let us know what you think or how it can be improved if you get a chance. Protonk (talk) 06:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. It's a lot to trudge through -- I tried to digest it all a few months ago and got bogged down, but I'm taking another stab at it. --EEMIV (talk) 22:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek Encarta

Why in the world would you not allow my fan film entry on the Star Trek fan film page? We've been in production for over a decade! What makes mine any different than any of the other ones you have listed, why are you trying to silence it's existence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Picardalpha (talk • contribs) 02:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition fails to cite any significant third-party coverage of the fan film. It doesn't meet the local consensus' inclusion criteria. --EEMIV (talk) 03:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Elder photo

Is the photo on [[1]] of Larry Elder free to use?Rockyobody (talk) 00:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Because Elder is still alive, photographs of him must be freely released, and there's no indication the CA bar has opened any of its images to the public domain (or under any of the other licenses that Wikipedia can use). --EEMIV (talk) 01:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]