User talk:TAnthony

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Nuvola apps kedit.png

CLICK HERE to leave me a new message; Sign your posts by adding four tildes at the end.


BB-8[edit]

Hello,

Dave Chapman & Brian Herring mentioned at the DragonCon Panel that a remote controlled rolling BB8 was built and used in only 2 scenes. The rest were the rod puppet and Trolley. I just thought it was an interesting fact to mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.61.219.38 (talk) 05:20, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

It is interesting and probably belongs in the article, but it needs a source. I can look for something that mentions this statement.— TAnthonyTalk 17:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Possibly this panel or this interview?— TAnthonyTalk 18:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Feud: Bette and Joan / Toby Huss[edit]

Toby Huss has a recurring role in the series as Frank Sinatra, it is not a one off character and given that Mr. Sinatra is a well known/famous person he should be included anyway. YborCityJohn (talk) 14:37, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@YborCityJohn: This is probably worth discussing on the Feud talk page; he has yet to appear in a second episode, and being a famous person means nothing, as Anne Bancroft was previously removed as well.— TAnthonyTalk 15:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

The TV guide billed the title to Talking With Chris Hardwick with a capital W. Can you revert it back to its current name.Leviathan648 (talk) 04:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Leviathan648: Thanks for your message. Article titles are written in sentence case per WP:TITLEFORMAT, and this pretty much trumps any sources which may show otherwise unless there is consensus that a particular unusual spelling, capitalization or punctuation is significant, overwhelmingly used, and notable. I should also point out that the official website appears to use a lowercase W, though using that as "proof" may be original research. Lastly, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks we Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization practices, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official" for titles (or products). Examples include Time instead of TIME, Numbers instead of NUMB3RS, Unreal instead of UnREAL, etc. Of course unusual formatting/stylization can and should be noted in the article if it is notable, but I don't think that's the case here. Thanks.— TAnthonyTalk 05:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Superman og Fredsbomben[edit]

I don't know why I would vandalize an article that I created myself some weeks ago.

This particular comic book was never published in USA, so any information in internet is very scarce. We all know that Superman is an american character owned by DC Comics/Warner Brothers, and this particular album was the first only time that DC permitted a foreign publisher to create an original story outside american soil. The very reason to have this page in US wikipedia was to help readers, collectors and pop culture enthusiasts that such book existed in Denmark, where it was originally produced, and in other European countries. The comic book covers that I put in the page was to help people. All this comics no longer are being published and their publisher companies no longer exists, they all shut down, so there are no copyright holders whatsoever.

These images were scanned from my own personal collection of the books I bought in early 90s and represent only the cover of the books. I never scanned the content of the books and publish here or anywhere else, that would be copyright offense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabiomarques (talkcontribs) 13:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@Fabiomarques: I have never told you that your edits were vandalism; you are not understanding Wikipedia's fair use policies and are continuing to improperly use non-free images. I inadvertently reported you at WP:AIV (vandalism) instead of WP:ANI (incidents) however, which works in your favor because you are not going to be blocked or anything. Hopefully this has gotten your attention though, which was my goal.
I understand everything you are saying, but these images are not freely useable, whether they are from your personal copies or not. You say "there are no copyright holders whatsoever", but you are wrong: even when a company goes bankrupt, even if everyone that ever worked there was sucked into the vacuum of space, someone or some entity is left with the rights to its intellectual property. Fair use policy allows for a minimal amount of images to illustrate a topic; in this case, this means the one cover image in the infobox and not the additional five variants you have provided. I'm sorry but those are the rules.— TAnthonyTalk 14:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
And thank you for adding external sources that feature the cover images rather than restoring the images themselves to the article. This is exactly how it is supposed to work; we can provide information helpful to the reader without violating WP policies, which are in place to protect WP from legal actions.— TAnthonyTalk 14:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
@TAnthony:Those products are not under american copyright law, they are produced in Europe, so different copyright law applies. But even in USA if copyright product license is not renewed it goes into public domain. Interpresse never renewed the copyright of Superman og Fredsbomben, neither did DC Comics or Warner Brothers, because it was never published in USA.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabiomarques (talkcontribs) 16:05, April 14, 2017 (UTC)
As I mentioned elsewhere, if that is true the images need to be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons instead, but you must be sure to add the appropriate license for this situation, and be able to provide documentation if requested, or they will be deleted.— TAnthonyTalk 16:31, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Feud: Historical figures and Major Crimes[edit]

Hey! Nice start on the historical figures list. I tweaked the heading and added a few, as well as who they are. We should talk about others who might be included (Robert Stack, Cliff Robertson, Lee Remick, etc.) I believe there are several more coming, based on the IMDB, but I have the group from the Oscars pretty well filled in.

Also, the cast table for Major Crimes has gotten heavy with recurring cast. It probably needs to be converted to narrative. What do you think? --Drmargi (talk) 19:35, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes the list was a good idea, appropriate for this show. And you're right about Major Crimes, it's become too much for a table.— TAnthonyTalk 20:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Melissa Hastings for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Melissa Hastings is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melissa Hastings until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Onel5969 TT me 12:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

List of Star Wars Characters Main Article template links[edit]

I see you have removed all of this, but is this absolutely set in stone for these main article links not to appear in a table? They fit well in the descriptions for the main characters and let readers know that there is definitely much more to these characters descriptions than a line or two. If not an absolute mandatory rule (why should it be?) then they should return to the article.

The link alone on the name doesn't differentiate major characters enough, as many don't lead to pages directly about the character listed, and many minor characters have these links as well. For example, a single line next to Luke Skywalker's name seems silly when next to Shmi or Snaggletooth who have paragraphs. But at the same time it would be a wasted effort to add in longer descriptions for major characters who already warrant their own articles. So I think the main article template is quite fitting here, or at least bolding the names of those with their own full pages. Just trying to make a better and more informative article over all.RamshackleMan (talk) 12:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@RamshackleMan: The documentation clearly states that This template is used after the heading of a section, and I actually don't think it fits well into the description box of a table. Even looking at it objectively, it is indented as a hatnote, which belongs before text, but you recognized that it would be even more weird there in this case and put it after. The link on the character name is enough, this is how character lists (and lists in general) are formatted. The link itself tells us there is more information elsewhere without needing a template. List of Star Wars characters is intended to collect all notable characters with a descriptive blurb and appearance/cast info on each. In general, every character should have a primary place at Wikipedia where we think the most information about them can be found, and the link to their name should lead there. Characters with their own articles are linked and should have minimal description in the list. Characters with bulked up sections in other articles (like Shmi Skywalker or Hera Syndulla) are redirected to those sections and should have minimal descriptions in the list. Some characters names may be just redirects to the source works, like Norra Wexley; in this particular instance it seems the best redirect destination, but of course redirects can be changed when a better destination arises. Finally, the list itself may be the best destination for certain characters, and these entries are the ones that can possibly be longer because the list becomes the primary source of information on the character. Shmi should not really have a longer description in the list than Luke because in those cases the list should only be identifying them and driving traffic elsewhere. I understand what you're saying but we do not need to differentiate major characters in the way you describe. Every link on Wikipedia may lead to a full article on the named topic, a specific section, or something else entirely, but we don't "warn" readers of a redirect in the body of an article (or a table for that matter).— TAnthonyTalk 13:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk pages[edit]

Most importantly, TA, I want to thank you for your wonderful efforts to improve redirect categorization! Just so you know, it is customary to add project banners only to talk pages that have already been created for another reason. So edits like this are covered at {{WPRED}}, where it states, "Note 1: While the above talk pages are eligible to be tagged with this banner, they should be talk pages that already exist." Thanks again for your help with redirects and other improvements!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  20:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: Interesting, I have not seen this condition before in other WikiProjects. Though I suppose since WikiProject assessments don't really apply here there are no concerns about skewed statistics. I've now read the template documentation but I'm not sure of the reasoning behind the limitation of use. Have you considered how the uniform use across the talk pages of relevant templates and categories can assist the Project in organization, mass changes, notification of new creations and even just giving you an accurate count of items relevant to the Project? I imagine this has been discussed, and I have no horse in this race, but just a thought.— TAnthonyTalk 21:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Actually, this stems from the guideline, specifically WP:TALK#CREATE. So since talk pages are not to be created just to place the {{Talk header}} template on the page, the same reasoning goes for project banners. The only reasons to create a talk page are either to begin a discussion about how to improve the subject page or to install a template about a deletion discussion and its outcome, such as keep, merge, etc. That's the community consensus regarding the creating of talk pages.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  00:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Just thought of another reason to create a talk page – one might create a talk page, for example, for a sandbox page or a template documentation page, and redirect it to a main talk page. This is done to centralize discussions.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  00:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC)