User talk:Steve Crossin/Archive 2008 February

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Steve Crossin, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Statuses

Statuses were removed sometime ago and if you feel that they are necessarry to be re-introduced please start an apropriate discussion on the tv project talk page. The statuses are nothing more than fan cruft and the it dosen't hurt argument dosen't stack up. As information how many sips of coffee a person has per episode dosen't hurt. That though is not included as it cruft information. The statuses could also be considered original research. You are welcome to initate discussions on this issue but please be aware of previous agreements on issues.--Lucy-marie (talk) 12:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Lynne Kresge

• I agree with you, word for word copying is not ok editorial-wise. My own opinion is that every character section should be a few sentences long, with a tag explaining to go to the 24 wiki for more information. Copyright wise, copy pasting from this wiki is ok as long as we credit the source (which is, most of the time, not done :x). Wikipedia and most of wikia content are under the same license the GFDL. -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Sorry I won't be able to officially mentor you (I can't spend much time on Wikipedia these days) but if you have a specific question don't hesitate to ask on my talk page, or to use the {{helpme}} template. I fixed the section linking problem, that's a technical issue due to the hidden table of contents. But I guess someone will revert it because he think this is ugly (and it is!). I couldn't find who reverted your edits, but if you dig into the History tab, you should be able to check if he left an edit summary or ask him directly. Reverting someone's edits without a proper edit summary is not good practice but it unfortunately happens. Miscommunication is a big problem in all Internet projects... I hope that helps! -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Nope I won't. We don't protect page if there is no edit war (the pages belong to the community, not to a single editor or group), and I obviously can't use my tools to gain an advantage aver the other side. Wikipedia works by discussion, and assuming the others are not dumb. This assumption sometimes fails of course, but most of the articles are safe. I don't think crackpots come and read the 24 articles! -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Hi SC -- Good work on the Minor characters on 24 page. A couple of things.
  1. One, I did reply on the Minor characters talk page & said that I thought organizing by season would be fine. I don't have an opinion on splitting the article yet; I'd like to see what it looks like once it's cleaned up.
  2. Two, I'd suggest you read carefully some of the policies and guidelines relating to fiction on Wikipedia. There's a lot of contention over whether fictional characters and individual episodes should be placed in separate articles or grouped into lists, and you'll certainly run into the discussions some time. One of the main problems that shows up on fictional characters, fictional objects, episodes, etc., is that people write lengthy plot summaries, lengthy character descriptions, and so on, based on watching the episode. Unfortunately, this violates Wikipedia's policy against original research -- everything published on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable, and published in a reliable source. Fictional concepts are supposed to be notable, and in the fiction guideline, that means "real-world notability", not "in-universe notability". All of those links are important policies (mandatory rules) and guidelines (consensus-based interpretations of the various policies and how they apply to specific topic).
• Feel free to drop a question on my talk page any time. --Lquilter (talk) 15:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

A couple of follow-ups:

• Internal link or anchor: It'll be easier for me to just type in the anchor code than to explain it. I'm sure there's some help in wikipedia on it, too. Basically each of the section heads becomes an internal anchor, and a pound sign (aka hash sign, aka #) at the beginning of that title will designate that as an internal link. E.g., Minor characters in 24#Lynn Kresge should jump directly to that section.
• I listed the policies & guidelines above that I think are particularly relevant. WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS are all about making sure we have third-party sources for material. WP:N is the general notability guideline, and third-party independent reliable sources that provide significant treatment of the subject is the lynchpin of determining notability. The same is true for WP:FICT, the fictional guideline, but that is being revamped right now.
• How to determine notability is the $64,000 question, but it's not really all that hard. There's an objective guideline -- if there's substantial independent coverage of the topic in published sources, versus if there's not. Fictional characters and objects are notable based on real world notability -- if the real world has talked about them -- not based on in-universe notability. In other words the various presidents in the 24 universe are only notable if there has been real-world coverage of them. Whoever was president before David Palmer is not notable; David Palmer is notable.
• Participate in the talk pages for WP:FICT or the various proposed related guidelines, e.g., WP:EPISODE, if you have thoughts about them. My own take on participating is that it is MOST IMPORTANT to comment only on the substance of other people's discussions, and not make any assumptions or comments about them as people. It's hard to stay calm in such discussions, so taking a break of a day or two is always a fine idea. : Hope this helps. --Lquilter (talk) 15:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• About internal anchors, I personally simply click on the appropriate link in the Table of Contents and look at the generated URL, that way you always have the correct naming. -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Yes, that's a good idea. I do this sometimes, too, especially if the heading is long or strangely spelled. The generated URLs have underscores instead of spaces, which works just as well in the link, but I usually replace the underscores with spaces just to make it look (and wrap) better. --Lquilter (talk) 17:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• A couple of other points --
  • I am more than happy to let you do the URL anchors -- go for it!
  • When you're doing conversations, you can indent your responses -- that's very helpful in making the thread of the conversation clear. Play around in your sandbox to experiment with combining * (bulleted list items), # (numbered list items), and : (indents) to see the different effects.
  • On the notability of independent characters -- I would resist making proposals about them right now until all the current kerfluffle settles down. In a couple of months, hopefully, the policies/guidelines will have stabilized, the edit wars will be over, and the current arbitration decisions will be settled and accepted. Then everyone's tempers will be easier and it will be easier to get objective opinions from all concerned about whether characters are notable or not. Right now I fear there will be a lot of cross kneejerk responses about it, based on the larger editing decisions. In the meantime, do go ahead and add new real-world content where it is referenced. That will definitely help make everyone's opinions better informed when these things come up for discussion. There's no rush; as my friend tries to remind me, the Internet (and Wikipedia) will still be here tomorrow.
• --Lquilter (talk) 17:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Editing restriction

• In fact someone linked me this decision a few minutes after our conversation (the 2 events are of course unrelated ;)). That means that we are asked not do delete (and probably merge) any article based on Episodes or Fictional Characters for the time being. This is of course temporary (there is an investigation going on on the behavior of some editors). Split should be okay if you keep everything. Note that oversplitting articles is often a bad idea. But being bold and trying never hurts. -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Considering this is an arbcom restriction, the editor not following it faces a block (if he's aware of the restriction, of course). I guess that'll keep people away. -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• I can't find where Lucy is requesting the merge of these articles but if she performs it, simply revert her change and point her to the arbcom case. -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• yup don't hesitate to update the tag if necessary. Good luck on the referencing! -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Cites & policing injunctions

I responded to your question about cites on my talk page, User talk:Lquilter. Also, with respect to policing the injunction, I'm afraid I can't help you. I've been a party to the various disputes and so it would be improper for me to use my admin powers in this issue. I'm sure you can post it on the talk page of the relevant discussion, and someone will pick it up. --Lquilter (talk) 22:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I've seen that, thanks for your help about cites, it's something I will extensively work on, once the URL anchors are done, but I will work on the articles when I know I can edit them without fear that they will be merged, even though an injunction has been put into effect. Then I will do all I can to add more citations. Steve Crossin (talk) 22:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Admin Theresa Knott has been sympathetic to my queries in the past. Try leaving a note on her page. TunaSushi (talk) 23:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Even if they are merged, useful referenced work will still be retained. Original research can't stay in an article, whether it's a stand-alone or a list. So your work will be helpful in any case. --Lquilter (talk) 04:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 04:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh

Oh I see; well, thanks to both of you, it's very nice now and probably took a lot of your time, which you wanted to spare anyway. :) Now... if someone is trying to find a specific name, say for example: Abu Fayed, it doesn't redirect yet to his name section on that page. Are you going to do all those redirects too individually? (I wonder if you can do hasjhsajhadjhdsh#yryryr for example if the yryryr is a === ______ === section?) I can help with those some if you want ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 09:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Nadia Yassir

Steve Crossin and I have been working together to improve the article. We all know that many articles of fictional characters are crap, but we've been adding sources to Nadia Yassir (good sources like NYT and NY mag that does not show her interviews). I believe that Nadia Yassir definitely meets WP:N now and the debate be closed. миражinred (سَراب) (speak, my child...) 04:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Abbreviated notability guidelines for your convenience

• "Presumed" without regard for the subjective personal judgments of editors.
• "Significant coverage" as in there are sources; OR not needed
• "Reliable" verifiable, published
• "Sources," as in secondary sources
• "Independent of the subject" as in sources not affiliated to the subject миражinred (سَراب) (speak, my child...) 04:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• As I said before, I don't think we should remove or add any notability or merge-related tags until things settle down. It doesn't really matter, except for aesthetics. Personally, I would just post a note to the talk page that this appears to be settled; do most people agree; will the notability tag be lifted once the injunction is over with. Build consensus, but be aware that some people may not be watching the discussion because of the injunction, so we have to wait for a little while. The whole point of the injunction is to avoid churn, confusion, and unnecessary argument while people are working, but instead to permit people to work together peacefully. So I wouldn't go asking for exceptions -- it sort of defeats the point. It's only a couple more weeks, anyway. Just my 2c. (cross-posted to Talk:Nadia Yassir). --Lquilter (talk) 15:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Adoption

Hello, Steve Crossin! I see that you have expressed an interest in being adopted by an experienced editor. I accept your request, being an experienced editor myself. Whether you want to learn about wiki markup, find something to do, or just talk to somebody, I'm the one you can talk to - just leave a message on my talk page. Good luck with Wikipedia! Tiptoety ^talk 04:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Alright, what are you interested in learning? Tiptoety ^talk 05:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Well, the first thing I really want to learn is about the Wikipedia policies. I generally work on fictional articles, see my contribution list. [1]. Also, some articles I'm working on, such as Karen Hayes, is mostly a plot summary, which contains a lot of in-universe information. My concern is, what sections on these sort of articles should I delete, and what should be kept. Steve Crossin (talk) 05:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Okay, great! I love the show 24, so this will be fun. I will get to reading and give you my thoughts on it later. On the topic of warnings, if you go here and scroll down the page about 1/4 the way there is a grid of all the warnings, for this situation i would use a level 2 warning: {{uw-vandalism2}}. Let me know if you have anymore questions! Tiptoety ^talk 05:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Actually that template is only to be used on WP:AFD discussion pages for articles whose subject is a fictional character or episode of a television series. So no, you could not use it, unless you nominated the article for deletion. Tiptoety ^talk 05:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Here is a complete list of the policies, there is a whole bunch so do not get overwhelmed. If you have questions about a specific one feel free to ask. Tiptoety ^talk 05:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• See here, I think this answers the question pretty clearly, if not i will try and explain. Your contributions will not be merged, due to the fact that currently all articles related to television series episode or character are restricted from redirecting, merging, or deleting at this time. Tiptoety ^talk 06:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Hmm....how to enforce it. I guess the best way is to warn the user who violates the injunction, revert their edit, and if they continue report to WP:AN/I like you did before. Tiptoety ^talk 06:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Doing..., reading up on some policies myself, will also check the sources you mentioned. Meanwhile, you should read WP:RS to find out what good sources are. All of this may take me a little while, I am going to call it a night and pick up in the morning. (And its your userspace, if you like bulletsdo what you want, I don't mind) :p Tiptoety ^talk 06:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Y Done Okay, so on the topic of Lucy and the conversation you had with her on her talk is really not my place to step in seeing as this has been going on for a while, and I am not familiar enough with the issue at large, might I ask that someone more involved step in? Maybe you should drop User:lucasbfr a line and ask him to comment? I also reviewed the sources on the talk page. My comments can be found there. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 15:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• The article needs a whole lot of work. I would be willing to help you work on it, by my job is to not do the work for you, but to teach you how to do it. BUT like i said before, I am willing and would be happy to help with more of the minor changes and guide you through the larger ones. I would also recommend that you contact some other users from wikiproject:24 and see if any of them would be interested in helping you, it will make everything go faster. Tiptoety ^talk 15:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• My main concern is that, I'm not sure on what to delete, and what to keep. Obviously, I don't want to delete too much, however I don't want to have the article as a plot summary. That's my main concern. Steve Crossin (talk) 15:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Yeah....I would merge day 5 and day 6 together to more specifically deal with the character of Karen Hayes apposed to what happens in general on those days. Instead of breaking down each day, do an section that includes all of her notable actions within the series. Make sure to explain your edits very clearly in you edit summary's, so that someone on recent changes patrol does not revert it thinking it is vandalism. Tiptoety ^talk 19:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

24 articles

Any articles with no referencing should be tagged as having no references until references are found. If you have no references in an article, you can't prove anything. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Well, that is disputed. It seems in the past you have targeted 24 articles before. Have all the other articles with no references been tagged before? If you really insist, I will go on Google, I'm sure there are thousands of pages that say thinks along the lines of "Jack Bauer played by Kiefer Sutherland", and the other characters, as well. I just think it's a little petty. However, don't think I'm biased. I saw your AfD for hyoscine-penothal, it should be either merged, or deleted, it doesn't deserve it's own article. As a matter of fact, I'll support you on that article. Steve Crossin (talk) 03:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Well it's good to know we agree on that point! :) On the 24 articles, I have always just assumed that all articles should have references. As to those specific points, like Jack being played by Sutherland, that probably doesn't need to be referenced, but it would be nice to have some referencing and also a lot more content in the article. We can dream about Featured Lists if we start adding content, and I wanted to highlight the lack of it by marking it for improvement. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed, I'm currently working on the Karen Hayes article, with some help with my mentor, I'm hoping to rewrite it completely, I worked with someone on the Nadia Yassir article, and theres little evidence that article is no longer notable, and has been rewritten to wipe out all the original research and in-universe information. However, I'm not sure on what else there really is to add to that page. It's really just a cast listing, and who they play. Is IMDB an OK source to use for citations, eg, to show that they really do portray that character, example: [2]

And on another note, I see you heavily edit Square Enix articles. This is something I would do as well, however, I just don't know where to find those sort of sources.

And, finally, I added my support on that AfD. [3] Steve Crossin (talk) 04:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the 24 character list article is daunting, that's why I said "dream" about Featured List status. :) A best sources have been reliable video gaming websites, particularly IGN, Gamespot, Gamespy, and also Gamasutra, RPGamer, Next Generation Magazine. Also, you can look up interviews by important creators of the game, such as developers and composers. That's why I do. If you have a specific article or piece of information your looking for, let me know, I can try to help out. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, and I think I'm right, there has been a general move away from IMDB as they have allowed trivia to be added by users that has not necessarily been checked out as factual. You may be able to make an argument that this use is unquestionable, but it might be easier to use another source (and there are many) that list him as the actor behind Jack Bauer.

Also, what specifically do you want to improve about Final Fantasy X? I am intrigued, since it is already an FA, and not a particularly old one. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• I didn't specifically mean that article, I meant all the articles branching out from that. I saw one article that was tagged in some way, needed improving.

I will try to avoid using IMDB, but if I can't find any other sources for a character, eg Leslie Hope-Teri Bauer, I will use that site. It's only an example.

Cool, let me know if you need help on that one :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The first two things we need to do is 1), find interviews with the actress and the show creators where they talk about her. Second, we need to format the article like a featured article of this type, so a fictional character. Perhaps Jack Sparrow, though much more famous, would be helpful. See what sections we need, what type of information we should have. Then once we have those interviews, we can fill the new sections with that information and delete what is currently here. That's how I do it anyway. Once you have references, you know what is content and what is OR or needless detail. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, the article is clearly notable, there are many sources from many different places, and the creation section is well sized, and that is a good indicator of notability. The article needs a reception section, to see what critics and perhaps fans thought of her character, and perhaps some bulking up all around, but I think it could stand on its own and not be merged into the CTU agents article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually going to head to bed, it's almost midnight in my timezone, but I'll help you tomorrow :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)