User talk:Robsinden

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

The Newsroom (U.S. TV series)[edit]

I note you have again deleted a subject from the Info box. The reason I reverted your original deletion was that you gave no reason whatsoever for your actions - that is what the box at the foot of any editing article is for and should be used. I'm happy to leave things as they are at present, but please do not quote Wikipedia guidelines when it says nothing about the inclusion/deletion of Executive Producers. Frankly, it is no wonder you are feeling "discouraged" if you act contrary to Wikipedia conventions. Thank you and regards. David J Johnson (talk) 13:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@David J Johnson: Firstly, it's a WP:NAVBOX, not an WP:INFOBOX. There has been longstanding consensus not to include executive producer roles in navboxes for individuals. This is codified in WP:FILMNAV, which states that Filmographies (and similar) of individuals should also not be included in navboxes, unless the individual concerned could be considered a primary creator of the material in question. An executive producer would not be considered a primary creator. As you will agree, the primary creator of The Newsroom is Aaron Sorkin. So you see, it is all there in the guideline. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)And this kind of patronising exchange and misreading of guidelines is exactly why I'm feeling discouraged. I'm not the one acting contrary to convention. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm afraid you are acting "contrary to convention". Wikipedia is quite clear that you should explain your deletions. Suggest you continue with your discouragement if you continue to act in this way. Case closed. David J Johnson (talk) 20:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

You are invited to WikiProject YouTube[edit]

Input at talk:Universal Monsters (2017 film series)[edit]

There is currently an RfC opened at the above stated talk page, for a retitling of the article. As you have been engaged in the conversation before I thought you'd like to know. Your input, as well as any other editor's is valued for the case of the argument - just follow the link provided above. Have a nice day.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 11:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Why not agreed?[edit]

Hi. Could you please explain what you find objectionable about this edit to WP:NCF? Your revert summary said only that it wasn’t agreed, but there were no objections to it, either (and various P&Gs advise against reverting for such a reason). Do you disagree with the edit on its own merits, and why? Thanks. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:31, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

RFC notification[edit]

Due to your editorial involvement in {{Winnie-the-Pooh}} I thought you might want to participate in the RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates#RFC: Overhauling the Disney franchise templates for consistency.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

RFC notification[edit]

Due to your editorial involvement in {{The_Jungle_Book}} and {{Tarzan}} I thought you might want to participate in the RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates#RFC: Overhauling the Disney franchise templates for consistency.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:44, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Star World India[edit]

Hi. I'm not sure I understand the reason for your attempt to make a meal out of this individual article. Anyway, whatever the case, I hope you are well aware of the fact that across Wikipedia, there are thousands of pages about television networks and the programmes that have aired on them. I don't think that this particular article is one of its kind in the whole of Wikipedia. Therefore, I request you do not bother about it too much. I request you to not be insistent since the content shall continue to exist because, repeating once again, many such pages, like this one, exist; so I don't find any reason on why the content should not be there.

Also, I did manage to remove enough amount of content which I felt were really violating the rules (i.e. the Weekend Binge list section and, the Programming Details section). What exists now is purely appropriate and requires no further non-essential cleanup. Thank you. --AllyJay50 (talk) 13:37, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Sister project links on templates[edit]

Hi. With the 2017-2030 goals of Wikipedia and the overall Wikimedia projects in mind and in heart, would you join me in a compromise on allowing sister-project links to be added to the bottom of templates. If the two of us propose allowing three links (just three pertinent links) to the below section it would go a long way in improving the reach and educational scope of the templates. Different templates would have different links, for example, the authors templates would include 'Wikiquotes' and 'Wikisource texts' (Wikisource isn't descriptive enough, which is why 'text' should be added to the visible links), two sister-projects which have a vast amount of knowledge and resources to share with readers. This compromise, in the spirit of the 2030 goals, would be, I believe, to the benefit of any and all readers who discover the vastness of our sister-projects via these links. Please consider this even though your first reaction may be to say no, as I know you want to retain only in-site links on templates. This minor addition, in many ways grandfathered from the past, would tie all these wonderful projects together in the spirit of 2030, and would open further windows to share beneficial resources. Thanks Rob. Randy Kryn 14:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

No, absolutely not. This has already been decided at that recent RFC. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Since you give this idea a quick dismissal I'd like to try once more, possibly I wasn't clear enough about adhering to the new "Spirit of 2030" in Wikimedia. Let me ask, do you really think that, say, Mark Twain's template won't include a link to Twain's "Wikiquotes" and his "Wikisource texts" in 2030? If you can say that our templates surely won't include access (oh, and by the way, if it happens we shouldn't use those loud and intrusive icons, the "below" looks much cleaner without those) to at least some of the wealth of information provided by the work of thousands of editors on our Wikimedia sister projects, then I can see you dismissing it with a curt three-word "No, absolutely not". But I come to your page again to ask if you'd at least reconsider joining into a reasonable consensus in the hope that you may see, "feel", or think that yes, by 2030 a few of those sister-project links will be allowed on templates - and if they will be there then maybe let's do it now and get it right. Getting it right to me would be a maximum three icon-less sister-project links per template in the "below" section, except for the main Wikipedia template which should appropriately and once again include all of the sister-project links. Randy Kryn 21:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Sony Music template[edit]

Hello.

 Please monitor Template:Sony Music as false info has been inserted in that template. Sony Music NEVER owned EMI Records although Sony/ATV Music Publishing did acquire controlling interest in EMI Music Publishing. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:14, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Sherlock Holmes (2014 TV Series)[edit]

Hello. Thank you for having moved the page "Sherlock Holmes (puppetry)" to Sherlock Holmes (2014 TV series). --Ishinoak (talk) 02:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (The Count of the Old Town) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating The Count of the Old Town, Robsinden!

Wikipedia editor Insertcleverphrasehere just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Needs additional sources for verification.

To reply, leave a comment on Insertcleverphrasehere's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

InsertCleverPhraseHere 08:54, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


Hi Rob[edit]

I see you took Making History out of the John Hancock and Samuel Adams templates, and wondering why. They were both characters in this entertaining series, and in using them as characters some of their history was conveyed to viewing audiences. Is it because it is a fictional sci-fi series (tangential?). Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Randy - Yeah, it's not really suitable for inclusion here. Major biographical works, sure, but this doesn't really count. Imagine if {{Abraham Lincoln}} included every series that he was portrayed in. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Good point, thanks. I hope that Abe Lincoln, Vampire Killer film isn't on the Lincoln template, I'll look and take it off if it is. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)