Jump to content

User talk:AussieLegend/Archive 20

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22→Archive 25

Hell's Kitchen Transclusion

While you are doing Hell's Kitchen Transclusion, I think having the Color Code/Key text being trancluded into the season pages might work well, opinion?Naraht (talk) 19:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

That would provide for some more consistency between seasons, which is what I'm attempting as part of the transclusion process, but we may have to create that as a separate template. I'm going to have to take a break from this for a few hours though. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanx, I'd expect it to be a separate template and WP:NODEADLINE....Naraht (talk) 20:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
@Naraht: I assume we want to create a single template for all articles, se we're consistent? --AussieLegend (✉) 08:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Actually, No. Seasons 1-4 should contain BoW and possibly BoB, I still haven't figured out if BoB meant something. 5-13 should be the same. I'd *really* like this not to encourage editors to add BoB to the more recent seasons... Maybe it could be one with an argument to indicate which one?Naraht (talk) 10:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
OK, that shouldn't be too much drama. The switch should specify that we want to use BoW while the default would be without it. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
And I'll ask on the main Hell's Kitchen talk page whether BoB every *meant* something.Naraht (talk) 16:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I've been through every article to check for variations in the keys. I found that "SICK" was used both to mean "withdrew for health reasons" in two seasons and "was hospitalized" in another two. I've fixed that by changing "SICK" to "HOSP" in the articles. "IN" has the same meaning in all seasons except s12, so we need to fix that as well, but here is the combined key as it stands now. I've noted where codes and colours are only used in certain seasons:
I'm concerned about the size of that versus the key found in some seasons like this from s13:
As you can see, it's a lot more compact. What's your opinion? --AussieLegend (✉) 19:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Seems like a large chunk of the season X only are either the Cook for your Life or *Robert*. I think IMM can be a color only since IMM is a subset of IN. I think the caveat on IN for CfyL can probably be dropped.
Is there any way we can cleanly have a core template and then cleanly have ones added to the end per season?
Also, what does it look like with only entries which are 4 seasons or more?
"the caveat on IN for CfyL can probably be dropped" - The only problem with doing that is that everyone in episode 1209/10 was "IN" and blck jackets had not been issued.
"Is there any way we can cleanly have a core template and then cleanly have ones added to the end per season? " - I don't think so. It tends to get messy.
"what does it look like with only entries which are 4 seasons or more?":
We can get around seasons that don't use the standard key by adding a special key or using notes. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for letting me know about this. I like your latest version. My comments

  • Cook For Your Life was a one-time event where I'm assuming the participants are selected by Ramsay, so the participants would be the equivalent of NOM / Orange for the winner and OUT / Orange for the loser with a footnote or an asterisk can be added saying they took part in that challenge.
  • Regarding SICK, HOSP, and other absences, I would use IN (if they missed the main service but was retained), OUT (if they were eliminated) and LEFT (if they took themselves out of the competition) and rename "Chef was hospitalized, but was eliminated" to "Chef was eliminated for other reasons". Footnotes can always explain the details.
  • I also agree about BoB and BoW pertaining only to the seasons that use the term. -AngusWOOF (talk) 16:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
To make the table even simpler, you could remove the "by Ramsay" and have nominations to cover anyone who was called up to have to defend themselves to stay in the competition for that episode. Remove "not called up" or "eliminated from winning team". Readers just want to know at a glance which folks had to defend themselves.
Color key
  Chef was eliminated after nomination
  Chef was eliminated without nomination - (for any eliminations at the "end" of the episode, regardless of circumstance (winning team, sick/absent, not called but spontaneously picked) )
  Chef was eliminated during service - (any mid-episode eliminations)
  Chef withdrew from the competition
  Chef was retained after nomination
  The winner of Hell's Kitchen
  The runner-up of Hell's Kitchen
What do you think? -AngusWOOF (talk) 23:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
That's certainly more compact and would simplify the table somewhat. @Naraht: What are your thoughts? --AussieLegend (✉) 03:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
OK, general comments. I'm not sure BOB *ever* meant anything, we should check. Also, I think it still might be better to have the words inside the color boxes able to represent different situations. If nothing else, "Severed three fingers during the Palate Test - not coming back" and "Served uncooked pork twice, Ramsey gets a restraining order" perhaps should have the same color but probably should have different text inside the box. Another thing that we need to consider whether they are the same or not... Situation: Red team loses. Anna and Barbara are nominated by the team. Ramsey calls up Anna and Cindy and eliminates Anna. Should Barbara and Cindy be colored the same? Should the words be the same?Naraht (talk) 13:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
If the different situations are more useful then let's keep the color scheme as that's less confusing than adding subtext like "NOM-R" (Nominated by Ramsay) but SICK, FIRED, LEFT, BACK were good keywords. As for the situation where Barbara's being nominated but not called, is that a fairly regular occurrence where Ramsay disregards some of the team's nominations? Does he call some people up and then send them back in the group without defending themselves? -AngusWOOF (talk) 15:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Template is live

@AngusWOOF:, @Naraht: - I have finally created Template:Hkcpt based on the suggestions above, and have added it to Hell's Kitchen (U.S. season 1) and Hell's Kitchen (U.S. season 2). I would appreciate your comments. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Looks good. Suggest changing bo to bestof and allowing for bestof=y (or yes or n or no). -AngusWOOF (talk) 15:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I actually wanted to make it a little ambiguous, otherwise we're likely to see it being constantly changed in the latest seasons, which don't use BoB and BoW. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, an IP has chosen to revert both additions. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Does it need an RFC or talk thread to get it implemented? -AngusWOOF (talk) 19:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
An RfC is a possibility should there be opposition, but for now a discussion at Talk:List of Hell's Kitchen episodes or Talk:Hell's Kitchen (U.S. TV series) should be sufficient. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Stop Following

Stop stalking all my edits, other long running shows have set up their character charts like I had it. They are former characters and it is a necessary edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewwikiedit (talk • contribs) 04:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

No it's not a necessary edit, nor is it appropriate. As I indicated in my edit summary, we do not split into "current" and "former" as fiction is always treated in the present and therefore characters are always current characters. This is why another editor has reverted you. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
It is necessary because that is how fans and producers distinguish the characters when referring to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewwikiedit (talk • contribs) 04:42, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
This is not a fansite, nor is it a site for producers. It is an encyclopaedia and we treat subjects encyclopaedically. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

HK colors

This changes for the color aren't good to looking! The table appears very messy! — Preceding unsigned comment added by HULIANTERRA (talk • contribs) 20:14, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

The colours haven't changed, we've just reduced the number so that the table complies with MOS:ACCESS. If you want to talk about messy, why would you add a colour that has never been used that makes the page hard to read?[1] --AussieLegend (✉) 20:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

List of MythBusters episodes

I was hoping you could answer a question I have about the MythBusters episode list. Do you know why they air on different dates in Australia and the US? As a show that airs on a USA based network I would have assumed that they would have aired in the USA first. Some episodes aired over two years earlier in Australia than the USA (for example Plane Boarding/Bite the Bullet).--SportsMaster (talk) 01:17, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

MythBusters is an Australian program filmed in the US. After filming, production is completed in Sydney. The episodes often air on SBS before they air in the US. That's not unusual. US TV series often air in Canada before they air in the US. I'm not sure why the US is so often slow to air programs, but it is. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Wow, I never knew that. Thanks, I appreciate the reply.--SportsMaster (talk) 07:50, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Good Humor
for this edit Gnangarra 13:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Andrewwikiedit

Anything I should be saying to User:Andrewwikiedit other than kindly warning him as you just did to make him stop reverting literally every single one of my edits? -- Wikipedical (talk) 23:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I did notice that he seems to revert a lot of your edits. All I can suggest is to just keep being polite. I've left him another polite warning about reverting. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, what's up with this guy? Another young 'un who thinks this is a fan site. --Drmargi (talk) 04:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Well' he's on a 31 hour vacation, with a sock perma-blocked. --Drmargi (talk) 05:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Aaaand. now he's got a buddy pushing the same damned edit about Gracepoint. Another sock, or a meatpuppet? --Drmargi (talk) 07:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
There's another at Slednecks. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Same one. He registered the day after Andrew was blocked. Heavy overlap at Slednecks, Gracepoint and at least one other show. Wait... is that a duck I hear quacking? --Drmargi (talk) 07:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
I think we need another SPI. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, probably so. Trouble is, our esteemed corps d'admin will take days on end to deal with it. --Drmargi (talk) 14:38, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Regardless, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Andrewwikiedit has now been created. I didn't mention it in the SPI, but I find it rather interesting that ISeahawk claims to have "accidentally" deleted his previous account, which he claims to be baseballfunfacts12. I wasn't aware you could delete your account. Must be a new thing. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:53, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

And you're right to do so, at least for the purposes of documentation. Trouble is, now we get to twiddle our thumbs while too many of them off on some drama board or another, or defending Malleus Fathead against his latest transgression. I suspect the account deletion is actually password deletion. Never heard of being able to delete one's account. --Drmargi (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

The account that he says he deleted isn't registered, so I don't think a password ever existed. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to quick action by Callanecc, ISeahawk is now indef-blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of Andrewwikiedit, who is now on forced holidays for a week. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Excellent! --Drmargi (talk) 12:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Watch your article mentioned above. He's IP socking or has a meat puppet now. --Drmargi (talk) 01:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit conflict

Re 2014 Sydney hostage crisis. Unfortunately the ref you tweaked (№ 13) "date fix" was exactly the same source as №12. I was simultaneously trying to 'fix' № 13 (it was rather malformed), but then I realised it was superfluous and tried deleting it we conflicted. [2] Great minds thinking alike? ₪ 220 of Borg 19:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Apparently. I was just making a minor edit more or less to mark my place after reviewing the 104 edits that had been made since I last edited. I missed what you found so I'm glad I'm not the only one watching. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Revert

I have a question. Why exactly did you revert my edit on the Jessie page? Is it not allowed to put the airing date (with a credible source) with the others in the box? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ijoshiexo (talk • contribs) 01:22, 17 December 2014‎ (UTC)

WP:TVOVERVIEW, which I linked in my summary, says that new table rows should not be created until an episode table for the season can be created. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The 100 and citing sources

I apologize - I thought I was helping out with adding the new episode of the 100. I noticed that it was on netflix. I will no longer edit any wiki pages... as I clearly have no clue what I'm doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.64.153.71 (talk) 09:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

@70.64.153.71: - Don't be discouraged, everyone has to start somewhere. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Editing

Thread closed because the OP has been blocked as a sockpuppet

In all honestly, what does it matter changing the column widths? I did it to make the table look better. Table still reads the same. And I have more important things to worry about than some Wikipedia column widths. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Powerpokmon (talk • contribs)

It didn't make it look better. I've explained to you that you can't randomly change column widths. You're lucky that the distortion wasn't severe. The column widths are set properly now. If you don't understand what you're doing, leave them alone. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Powerpokmon, you asked "what does it matter changing the column widths?" The question begins with you. If changing widths doesn't matter, why are you changing the widths? If you have more important things to worry about than Wikipedia column widths, don't change the widths. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Wow I totally worded my explanation wrong,Cyphoidbomb. My apologizes. Let me rephrase. I only changed the column widths to try to make the table look better. Because what I see is a unnecessarily long name column and a little thin column for their role in the series. It's like the radio's off. It looks like too much of the table is just for names of the cast. And, AussieLegend I think you're being a bit dramatic when you said I was lucky the distortion wasn't severe. I didn't do that much. Quick change of the number would make it okay in your eyes. And what I meant by I have more important things to worry about than Wikipedia column widths, is that I don't want to sit here on my tablet arguing to someone in the internet world over something like Wikipedia column widths. (Powerpokmon (talk) 00:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC))
The column widths for the roles are narrower because they contain narrower data than the name column. In The Real Housewives of Miami the role columns are 8% while the name column is 15% but you reduced it to 3%, causing lines to wrap unnecessarily. For comparison:
Original table
Housewives Seasons
1 2 3
Current main housewives
Lea Black Main
Adriana de Moura Main
Alexia Echevierra Main Friend Main
Lisa Hochstein Main
Joanna Krupa Main
Former main housewives
Marysol Patten Main Friend
Larsa Pippen Main
Cristy Rice Main
Ana Quincoces Guest Main Friend
Karent Sierra Main Guest
As modified by Powerpokmon
Housewives Seasons
1 2 3
Current main housewives
Lea Black Main
Adriana de Moura Main
Alexia Echevierra Main Friend Main
Lisa Hochstein Main
Joanna Krupa Main
Former main housewives
Marysol Patten Main Friend
Larsa Pippen Main
Cristy Rice Main
Ana Quincoces Guest Main Friend
Karent Sierra Main Guest
Really, which looks better? Everything on one line or with unnecessary wrapping? Of course, if you had modified the table width as well as the column width, which is what you should have done, the table would look like this:
Housewives Seasons
1 2 3
Current main housewives
Lea Black Main
Adriana de Moura Main
Alexia Echevierra Main Friend Main
Lisa Hochstein Main
Joanna Krupa Main
Former main housewives
Marysol Patten Main Friend
Larsa Pippen Main
Cristy Rice Main
Ana Quincoces Guest Main Friend
Karent Sierra Main Guest
It's fairly clear that the original table looks better. There's no need to wrap unnecessarily when there is plenty of room to expand width-ways. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Clearly though, you're just not getting it, as this edit demonstrates. How does 4+30=10? And here, why did you partially remove MOS:ACCESS/MOS:DTT compliance, violate MOS:BOLD, incorrectly apply col scopes to table rows, and yet again, screw up the formatting? 3+20 does not equal 32. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Here's what I'll do. I stop editing Wikipedia pages. It obviously takes years of experience to edit any part of Wikipedia with all this coding stuff and whatnot. I don't think you could really dumb it down for me any more. I'm done. And by the way, The Real Housewives of Melbourne doesn't look like all the other tables for the Real Housewives as far as style is concerned. Should be universal But you want it to look that way. So go ahead. I'm done editing (Powerpokmon (talk))

Sea Shepard Conservation Society

What have I edited that is not true? I have changed words to correctly define their actions, It has been disputed for over a year and nobody will fix it! They attack legal whalers, legal tuna farmers, destroy property, blow ships up risking lives. What have I said is not correct termonlogy? Why do you want to hide the fact they have been attacking legal business?

The arctile is written to make it seem like its illegal AND THE WHALES ARE NOT ENDANGERED! isnt that a fact that should be there? but thats not one they shareGhhghghhgg (talk) 18:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Per the warning that I left on your talk page, we try to maintain a neutral point of view when editing articles. Your contributions have not been neutral, as the title that you gave to this section demonstrates. As you've already been advised, not all of the actions you described as legal have been found as such. Japanese whaling in particular is extremely controversial. You and Japan claims that it is legal, while the international courts have found it not to be. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:14, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
"while the international courts have found it not to be." Got a ref? International whaling Com.
THE WHALES ARE NOT ENDANGERED, the article says they are which if just FALSE Can ths biased part changed to be factual? Can you let on fact into the article and change the one lie of the whales being endangered? NO POV FACTGhhghghhgg (talk) 18:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


How do you discribe blowing up a ship which might have people on it? What would you say if somone set off explosives in your house? (I bet you wont answer as you dont like your answer)Ghhghghhgg (talk) 18:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
You can find the ruling by the International Court of Justice here. It was widely reported:
I believe they even heard about it on the International Space Station. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

TheAmazingRaceFan7474

Morning, Aussie. If you're around, can you take a look at TheAmazingRaceFan7474's edits? He's adding unnecessary running segment totals to various Arthur articles. No discussion, and I've explained about consensus on his talk page. I'm busy at the moment and can't attend to this. If not, no biggy, I'll deal with it later. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Scratch that. An admin already contacted him about the additions, so I'll just hit him up. Thanks, m'man. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Mythbusters... Really again!!

What do I have to do prove to you that 2014 mythbusters is over!! I have received a direct response from Adam Savage, and there are dozens of articles to confirm my claim. Therefore stop blindly reverting my edits while using "wiki policy/ traditions" to support your claims. -StevieB5175 — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevieB5175 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

First off, I don't blindly revert. I explained the rationale for reversion in my edit summary. If you've had contact with Adam Savage that constitutes original research, which is not permitted in articles. As I explained to you only a month ago, and you said that you understood,[3] Wikipedia is not working to a deadline so there is no need to worry about when to update the article. There's no reason why this has to be done before the end of the calendar year. You don't need to get it done before Santa comes. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
And by what policy states that the "new year" is in itself a deadline. Facts will not change between now and the new year. Instead of erasing my "amateur" work you could critique it or talk to me on my talk page. I'd say half a dozen of articles are enough to uphold your "silly policies". Only problem is that you do not give me adequate time to cite my sources.StevieB5175 (talk) 17:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
As I explained previously, everything added to Wikipedia must be verifiable. Wikipedia:Verifiability is a core policy. A source explicitly stating that there will be no more episodes in 2014 is required in order to justify adding an end date to the 2014 season article before 2014 has ended. I suggest you re-read the previous discussion, which is now archived here, because the questions you are asking were answered then. --AussieLegend (✉) 22:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Why can't YOU help me out then by helping ME verify what I'm saying; or better yet how bout you with much experience, help me with little experience. Right now if I revert the edit and add half a dozen citations, I'm still convinced that you will revert my edit just like all other users who tryed to make changes in the past month, all in order to fulfill your bureaucratic nonsense. By all that I can tell, Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative process in which editors can freely improve pages with supported statements. While it is understand we that certain guidelines need to be taken to streamline Wikipedia's quality, little things like what you are bothering about are completely trivial. Is Wikipedia a collaborative effort, or a place where everything has to be okayed by one person (like yourself) to see the light of day? If it indeed is the latter, I can guarantee you that you are loosing scores of potential new coming editors who are turned off by your one sided approach. Also, if I'm doing something wrong, why can't you be helpful and guide me through the correct approach? (And help does not mean confusing the editor with foreign jargon just to sound professional) Unless you are you paid by Wikipedia, you are on the same level as other editors; therefore you of all editors should be welcoming to newbies! WP:DNB. StevieB5175 (talk) 23:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Why are you so intent on changing the date before 1 January 2015, when it won't be necessary to provide a citation? Because the reliable sources talk about seasons, when the articles here use the calendar year, there's not going to be a source that supports you. It's a change that just isn't worth the effort. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm beyond that now. If you want to do all the work so be it. I'm convinced though that no matter what anyone does to the page, you are going to revert it back to show your dominance. Is that what Wikipedia is about? And what about my other questions? (I want to hear from you, not a link to a Wiki policy because I'm tired of that...)StevieB5175 (talk) 23:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I've answered your questions, I answered them a month ago and you said you understood, but clearly you didn't, which is why I pointed you to policy, which explains the requirements at length. Clearly, you are not "beyond that" because you're spending a lot of time on something that isn't worth the effort. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I asked for a direct reply and you didn't give it to me... In YOUR own opinion and words: is Wikipedia a collaborative effort, or a place where everything has to be okayed by one person (like yourself) to see the light of day? StevieB5175 (talk) 23:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I've given you several direct replies and, while you are entitled to demand responses, I am not obligated to respond to demands. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm trying to remain as polite as possible! Curiosity from someone new to Wikipedia is a "demand" you should be able to respond to! StevieB5175 (talk) 23:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Hi StevieB, If this discussion is about this edit of yours, though you obviously meant well, I probably would have reverted it too, because we don't add new seasons to the overview box until an episode table is created for that season. (WP:TVOVERVIEW) And as Aussie pointed out earlier, we're in no hurry to add information into the encyclopedia, so if we have to wait for reliable sources to arrive, so be it. I made honest mistakes when I was a n00b, but I listened and adjusted without letting the criticism crawl under my skin. There are a lot of guidelines, but in time you'll figure them out. Good editing, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Cyphoidbomb!!StevieB5175 (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Real Housewives tables

Thread closed because the OP has been blocked as a sockpuppet

First of all, if anyone is "distorting" the tables, it's you. The name column has always been shorter than the season column. And now you're coming in and saying it can't be like that for The Real Housewives of Cheshire table. The name column is unnecessarily long and looks like crap. You also changed the style of The Real Housewives of Melbourne table and it looks nothing like the other The Real Housewives tables and now you're saying no one can change it back to what it used to be. "How dare they distort the table and make it look like all the other tables" is basically your attitude. I thought the editing process of Wikipedia was a group effort. Not a dictatorship. I'm actually trying to make the tables look a little better and took your advice about widths adding up to the correct number. But my edits have been in vain. In fact I was afraid of taking out false information/gossip on The Real Housewives of Orange County page because I was afraid that you would come along and say I "distorted" something and threaten me with some sort of administrative action. I'm afraid to make any edits. And the edit on your User page was a honest mistake on my part. Sometimes I click on the wrong link. I did it with Orangemike before I realized I was writing on his User page and quickly abandoned my edit and wrote it on his Talk page. Why would I write on your User page on purpose? (Powerpokmon (talk) 13:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC))

You're very much missing the point. You can't make the "housewives" column only 3% when the text in the column is much wider than that. It does not work! The column has to be at least as wide as the text and will force itself to be at least as wide as the first word. In some cases you are causing names to wrap onto a second line when there is absolutely no need, and doing so creates additional whitespace vertically, which is undesirable. I have tried to explain this to you but you're clearly not getting the message. Take, for example, this change, which resulted in:
Housewives Seasons
1 2
Current main housewives
Gina Liano Main
Lydia Schiavello Main
Janet Roach Main
Jackie Gillies Main
Chyka Keebaugh Main
Gamble Breaux Main
Pettifleur Berenger Main
Former main housewives
Andrea Moss Main
Friends of the housewives
Lisa Tonkin Guest Friend
Christa Billich Friend

You've forced the "Current main housewives", "Former main housewives" and "Friends of the housewives" to be left aligned instead of center and the season column widths are ridiculously wide because of a syntax error that you made in the first line of the table. Fix ing the silly syntax error you get:

Housewives Seasons
1 2
Current main housewives
Gina Liano Main
Lydia Schiavello Main
Janet Roach Main
Jackie Gillies Main
Chyka Keebaugh Main
Gamble Breaux Main
Pettifleur Berenger Main
Former main housewives
Andrea Moss Main
Friends of the housewives
Lisa Tonkin Guest Friend
Christa Billich Friend

Now the table is narrower but the three mentioned headings now wrap, as do some of the names. That's because of the incorrect column widths that you specified. That also causes the season columns to shrink to less than 10% of the width that they're supposed to be. Remove the text in the first column and it shrinks to the size that you've specified:

Seasons
1 2
Current main housewives
Main
Main
Main
Main
Main
Main
Main
Former main housewives
Main
Friends of the housewives
Guest Friend
Friend

Clearly, 3% is far too narrow and, because of the bad maths, when the text is removed the season columns are able to expand out to the 10% that is specified. Your edits are causing numerous errors so, while you think that you are aking them look better, you most certainly are not. The "editing process of Wikipedia" is a group effort but the group shouldn't have to put up with errors that are constantly being introduced. And please, do not create sockpuppets.[4] --AussieLegend (✉) 14:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

A bit of a form letter from me to you (don't go poking around in my edit history or it'll get even more obvious how much of a form letter it is!) to wish you happy holidays, a Merry Christmas, a Happy Hanukkah, a Happy December, Happy Snow, Happy Sunshine, and an otherwise generally happy end to 2014. Thanks for all the constructive editing, support and civil discourse. Here's to another year of assuming good faith of one another. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Re: Vikings seasons

Hi. I apologise for the removal of several material from the Vikings season articles, but I just wanted to do something about all that duplicated material. Regarding the edit errors, I just looked at a random season page (e.g. Homeland (season 4) ) as example, without taking care of the errors. Anyway, these article do need a huge revision. Maybe you can add a warning or sth. Thanks. --79.41.104.64 (talk) 20:09, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I actually agree with you about the duplication, although not necessarily with the implementation. Season 1 is pretty much as it should be, but season 2 needs some significant work. Season 3 was recently created and, unfortunately, the creator used season 2 as a template. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Infobox Australian place

After your recent changes to {{Infobox Australian place}}, about 1,100 articles have been added to the maintenance category Category:Pages with malformed coordinate tags, apparently because in those articles the infobox has both "latd", etc., fields filled in and a "coordinates" field containing {{coord}}. At the moment, I've a rather bad case of influenza, so I'm not of a mind to try to clear the category by hand. Is there some way for you to get a bot to strip out the redundant {{coord}} template in these articles, or perhaps change the template code to ignore the "coordinates" field if "latd", etc., are being used? Deor (talk) 13:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, although I'm surprised that happened. I didn't really do anything to the coordinates section in the template. I'm in the process of merging two infoboxes and my changes have only added fields that didn't exist in Infobox Australian place. The only coordinate based changes added |map_scale=, which was working in the other infobox (both infoboxes use similar code). The articles that have been added to the cat have had both "latd" etc., fields and a "coordinates" field for ages with no problems. I'll have to play with the code to see what's causing the problem. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
As you've no doubt seen, whatever you've been doing has fixed the problem. Thanks for giving it your attention. Deor (talk) 15:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
It seems that some redundant tracking code was the problem.[5] --AussieLegend (✉) 00:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Tables schmables

Hey Aussie, could I trouble you to please use your table wizardry on the overview at List of Scaredy Squirrel episodes? I tried to condense the table to about 30% but for some reason the entire table is centered on the page. I copied formatting from other properly-formatted tables and did a page preview, but I still couldn't get the table oriented left. As I've mentioned, I'm not slick with tables. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

It's "margin:auto" that causes the problem.[6] --AussieLegend (✉) 23:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Purdya

I usually reprimand non-admins for tagging user pages based on SPIs or otherwise, but you've robbed me of that "pleasure" as your tagging was precisely right. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I didn't see any point in bothering any of the admins involved. There was obvious confusion because Purdya had been using Acpurdy as the primary account until it was blocked. You all jumped on this one pretty quickly so I was happy to help. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Beethoven

I am not sure if I understand your last comment right, and am afraid that Arbitration Enforcement will come after me if I ask there (may come here also, broadly construed, well, I will take it then): you seem to distinguish {{infobox person}} and others, but it's person which is proposed (good for any person). The key misunderstanding (for 10 years now) seems to be that some think the ibox is to summarize "the person" (pretty impossible even for a whole article when we deal with a genius), while it's only "key facts about a person". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:37, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

While we are at it, Aussie, I see you on several pages and I strongly suggest you focus on the issues and not the personalities. It is not wise of you to attack people such as Andy. Look at the issue itself and discuss its merits. I say this as a gentle caution to you, but a caution indeed. Montanabw(talk) 00:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
I will continue to post as I see fit. I do concentrate on the merits but Andy's abrasive attitude towards other editors always has a negative effect on discussions. He needs to spend more time editing collaboratively and less on editing Wikipedia according to his rules. I realise he has his fanbois, but I don't see that as a reason not to say what needs to be said. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Saying things like "always has a negative effect" is nonsense and your "abrasive" attitude is as much of the problem as his. The reality is that he is experienced in this area and attempting to do some desperately needed cleanup, all while being stalked by assorted detractors. I suggest that you return your focus to the issues, not the individual. Truly, do you really believe that there should be separate templates for every single mass transit system in the world, or are you more concerned with WP:BAITing Andy? (and insulting other wikipedians who get what he's trying to do) Please read WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Montanabw(talk) 09:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Have a look at the recent raft of nominations and see how many people he has upset simply because he refuses to add |type=infobox to nominations just because it's not an option in Twinkle. The "desperately needed cleanup" that you speak of is often completely unnecessary, let alone "desperately needed". I suggest you look more objectively at the contributions, many of which are inconsistent. I believe that infoboxes should be created as necessary and if an infobox works and isn't creating a drain on resources, there's no need to delete it. The process of TfD is more often than not a huge drain, greater than that expended on maintenance of the template. However, I do believe that templates that aren't being used, like {{Infobox Schutzhütte}}, may as well be deleted. I therefore find it inconsistent when somebody votes to keep that template,[7] but then nominates a used template for deletion. I don't appreciate your suggestion that I'm baiting Andy. It was he who crossed my path, not the other way around. I'd be happy to avoid Andy completely but, if I have to deal with him, I'm not going to hold back. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I had hoped for an answer to my question when I saw the header. I don't know what a fanbois is, but have collaborated well with Andy since I met him, in 2012 that is, disagreeing with him (then) but happy with his subtle humour (Talk:Samuel Barber#Infobox): "Unless, of course, someone wishes to argue that Barber was not a person..." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know a lot about the technical ins and outs, but I think that in some cases, substitution seems to work, whereas in others it doesn't. I think there was some dry humor there about twinkle, and I will note that those templates in twinkle do lack certain critical parameters or options... but that's not the point, the point is the merits of the various suggestions. I am not certain, but I also think that if Andy did anything unilaterally without going to TfD, he'd be in even more hot water. Montanabw(talk) 05:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
There's no humour regarding Twinkle. Any has steadfastly refused to add |type=infobox despite numerous requests from numerous people and he always blames Twinkle. It's an easy edit to make but he won't, apparently because it doesn't matter to him that he annoys multiple editors and confuses our readers, who don't understand the page-wide banners that don't need to be there. If Andy were to discuss his proposals with end-users and maintainers, both of which are very easy to find, he'd probably have a lot less opposition. @Gerda Arendt: Sorry for not replying earlier but I've been sidetracked. Johnbod argued that the idea that infoboxes summarise the key points of the article is manifestly untrue for composer articles and, indeed, most biographies. While {{Infobox person}} has been proposed, {{Infobox classical composer}} is the infobox that was created for the articles. It provides for only the barest of facts and on its own is really inadequate. That's why it's untrue for composer articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
We seem to have a misunderstanding. I don't know {{Infobox classical composer}} and don't have to because {{Infobox person}} does all I need. The difference - to me - seems to be that some think the ibox has to summarize "the key facts" while I believe "key facts". Do you see the difference? We have NO WAY to summarize "the key facts" about Beethoven, not even in an article, but we can supply our readers with dates, locations and a list of his works to start with, telling them the article is not about a painting but a composer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:49, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
"I don't know {{Infobox classical composer}} and don't have to because {{Infobox person}} does all I need." - That's an attitude that could be problematic and might even lead to sanctions. There are over 200 biographical templates and you really have to pick the right one for the right job. For example, the tennis project uses {{Infobox tennis biography}} so you should use that infobox in articles. Slapping Infobox person in a tennis player article might seem OK, but someone then has to fix that and converting infoboxes can take more time than populating the correct infobox in the first place. I have enough trouble just fixing articles in which somebody has incorrectly populated the correct infobox. "Key facts" is the correct thinking. A lot of editors want to populate every field but we really only need to populate those that are relevant. I disagree that we have no way to summarise the key facts about Beethoven. We have to summarise the key facts in the article in order to create the lead, so there is no reason we can't use the same process to create the infobox. Summarising key facts doesn't mean we have to summarise every key fact. We can only summarise what is verifiable. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I pick the right one for a job on a person which is {{Infobox person}}. If another user knows better about tennis and installs {{Infobox tennis biography}}: wonderful. I thought so far that Wikipedia is about collaboration. If tennis biography is a good template, parameter names are the same, you only have to add. - (I am of course slapping nothing because I am sanctioned not to add any infobox to an article I didn't start from scratch. - I am used to sanctions, it helps to have worked on Kafka.) - Your innocent belief that we can summarize "the key facts" about Beethoven in our article is adorable. - Happy 2015 also to you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
The right infobox is the correct one for that article not a generic one that you use just because you couldn't be bothered looking. Perhaps your belief is why you are sanctioned, or at least contributed. My "innocent belief" as you call it is standard practice. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't write about people who can not be covered by "person". If you care to look at classical composer you will see that it is a SUBSET of person, limiting parameters. Why should I stick to those limitations? - If you seriously believe that we will ever be able to cover "the key points" of Beethoven's genius in our little article we have no way of understanding each other. - I am sanctioned because I rescued Andy from being banned, or do you know any other evidence? It's one of the better things I did on WP. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
ps: now that I understand that bois has nothing to do with the Bois de Boulogne but with boys is smile a lot, as gals would be better for most of those people who think Andy has ideas a little sooner than others. See also, with my comments, search for "I believe that Andy is a blessing for Wikipedia." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Aussie, you have no idea how difficult it can be to sort through 10,000 balkanized infoboxes to find the "right" one. Infobox Person gets it started, (I've used that one on dozens of various articles and no one has thrown a fuss yet, save for classical music articles) and if another editor wants to clean up and improve what I insert, that's perfectly fine. As an editor who is not a tech, I rely heavily on people like Andy to help out with this. I try to find something related, but I copy and paste from other articles most of the time and usually have a few errors along the way. Your ill will on this issue - such as the attack on Gerda above about her sanctions and the "fanboi" crack - is just unnecessary. (I am sure you have read WP:AGF and WP:NPA, but a re-read might be in order) The reality is that the pro- and anti- infobox crowd will probably never see eye to eye, but the reality is that infoboxes are useful for almost every article on wikipedia and it is my view that ALL biographies should have them. You can make various IDONTLIKEIT arguments, but let's lay off the personal attacks and vitriol. It's inappropriate. Montanabw(talk) 09:12, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
The way that I found the right infobox for a tennis player was to type "Template:Infobox tennis player" into the search box. It sent me to Template:Infobox tennis biography. Let's try it another way. {{Infobox person}} is in the category Category:People infobox templates. Listed in that category are all the relevant temples. Yes, I do have no idea how difficult it can be, because it's not really hard at all to find the right person infobox. I had more problems finding out what "balkanized infoboxes" were, since Balkanization had nothing about them. I made no crack about Gerda being a fanboi. I mentioned fanbois in a reply to you, and I wasn't talking about you, either. I really don't know what relevance the "pro- and anti- infobox crowd" has to this discussion. You seem to have the wrong end of the stick here. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:26, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I didn't Know

Sorry about the SpongeBob episode thing, I didn't know. Anyway thanks for letting me know Aussie. Thank you and have pleasant day. (Atomic Meltdown (talk) 09:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC))

You said that the Abby Elliott picture wasn't used in any articles. But it was in her article, I'm just a little confused by that. Can you explain it again. (Atomic Meltdown (talk) 09:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC))
We can't use non-free images in the biographies of living persons as this violates the first criteria of our non-free content policy. Non-free content can only be used if there's no possibility that a free image could be created. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

MythBusters high definition

AussieLegend, have you ever been able to find a source on when the MythBusters started shooting in high definition? Any idea what year/season that would have been? I can't find anything. --SportsMaster (talk) 23:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I've had no success either. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Amazon lists all the episodes available to watch at Amazon Prime. The first available in HD is the Holiday Special from Dec 6, 2006. Everything after that is watchable in HD... everything before only SD. There are articles from 2007 that tell of the recent change to HD such as www.studiodaily.com/2007/12/60-second-qa-peter-heap-dp-mythbusters/ and designtaxi.com/news/14008/Sony+XdCam+HD+System+Helps+Mythbusters+Bust+Into+the+World+of+HD/faq/faq/?interstital_shown=1. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Real Housewives of Beverly Hills

Hi. I'd love for you address the Real Housewives of Beverly Hills page. CLEAR evidence has been provided that a change needs to be made to follow the rules- yet the page is protected and no one will change it? 74.14.26.98 (talk) 20:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't actually know enough about the series to know whether what has been said is corrrect. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Infobox conversions for Protected area articles

Hi AussieLegend, I have noticed your work re the above subject which is greatly achieved. I am writing to confirm which infobox template should be used in the future as I have an ongoing project of writing stub-class articles for South Australian protected areas. Look forward to your response. Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 04:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The plan is to replace {{Infobox protected area of Australia}} with {{Infobox Australian place}}, as they're very similar templates, and it will ease ongoing maintenance issues. I've yet to update Infobox Australian place's documentation, but you can use Infobox protected area of Australia's documentation in the meantime. The only real difference is that you need to include |type=protected as the first field in the infobox. If you have any questions or notice anything that isn't quite right, please do not hesitate to ask me for help. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Cowdy001 (talk) 21:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Favre1fan93 (talk) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:HH2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Merry Christmas!

AlexTheWhovian (talk) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:HH2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Ho, ho, ho!

Merry Christmas!
Have yourself a Merry little Christmas, AussieLegend! - {{{1}}}

ANZAC Day

Hi, Aussie Legend,

You removed something I wrote about the Armenian Genocide on the page concerning anzac. You said that you didn't see the relevance. Maybe I should have explained more why I think the commemorations are linked. First of all the events commemorated are oonly separated by one date. See this article: http://www.gallipoli100.info/?p=161 Furthermore, this historian claims connections with the landings and the arrestation of the intellectuals on the following day: BLOXHAM (Donald). “The Armenian Genocide of 1915-1916: Cumulative Radicalization and the Development of a Destruction Policy” Past & Present. 181 (November 2003), pp. 141-192. That's why I found it strange to find nothing about it on the page. Amn't I right?

Thank you, YouriDB — Preceding unsigned comment added by YouriDB (talk • contribs) 20:41, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Christmas Day, Easter Sunday, Good Friday and every other "day" are commemorated on only one day. The only "link" to ANZAC day seems to be that the events occurred close to each other. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Something of interest

Sorry to bother you, but after reading what's been going on here; I think this and also this may even add more evidence. Ironically the words used by a certain individual are near-identical to the words they also used here and at this venue too. Clearly a pattern emerging. Wes Mouse | T@lk 08:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi AussieLegend,

Thanks for correcting my edit(s), like here, where I used the emphasis template and you replaced with italics. As I stated in my edit summary for the previous revision, I'm attempting to follow the WP:BOLDFACE guideline. As I'm understanding the guideline, the editor has the option to downgrade the markup, boldface to italics, or remove the markup altogether, and I'm flexible on that part (as far as where I decided to apply emphasis). I'm in the process of updating a number of TV episode list articles to remove unnecessary boldface.

What prompted me to start enforcing WP:BOLDFACE more rigidly? I started a discussion on the talk page for Girl Meets World, titled Boldface removed in episode summaries, after user Wikipedical removed the excess boldface from the article. I did point out in the discussion how a lot of TV episode articles, and way beyond Disney Channel shows, have boldface used on headings such as "notes" and "guest stars". You may voice your concerns in that discussion if you wish. MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Accolade

Hardworker
Thanks for pulling such a heavy load with your general cleanups. Shiftchange (talk) 16:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Pity

Neither of us was particularly diplomatic during that exchange. It's a pity. There's no reason we shouldn't get on better in the future. Kind regards. Tony (talk) 08:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

TV References

Hello. I was wondering what you thought were the best references for TV episodes. It seems as of the new season that they are no longer listing MythBusters episodes on the Discovery Channel website. What would be the best website? TVGuide or MSN TV? Or something else? Thanks. SAJ (T) 03:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

There is a list of sources at WP:TVFAQ. All have some issues but The Futon Critic, TV Guide and MSN seem the most consistently reliable in my opinion. Don't be surprised that the latest MythBusters episodes aren't listed on the Discovery website. This periodically happens and I fully expect to see the listings appear at a later date. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I was trying to find a page that mentioned what reliable sources there were, but could not find it. SAJ (T) 05:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Cartoonsman96

FYI, SPI opened at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Noggyjoggy. Good day, sir! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Your comments at the SPI cleared up some questions that I had. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Logo for Boomerang (Latin America)

Hey Aussie, hope the day finds you well. I notice some logos at Boomerang (Latin America), but I seem to remember something about only including logos on the main topic's article, but not for secondary articles. So we might reasonably have a logo for Disney Channel, but we would not include logos for Disney Channel Asia or Disney Channel Outback. Is that correct? What's the guideline on that? If anyone would know, it's you. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

What you "seem to remember" is correct. There are a number of non-free Boomerang logos used on multiple pages. This should probably be brought up at WP:NFCR. --AussieLegend (✉)

Myth Names

Hello AussieLegend. For the 2015 season of MythBusters, it seems as though they are not including individual myth names. So, on the 2015 season page, should there be no sub-headings like previous seasons? All the myths could just be in one table. It is not ideal, but it seems like some IPs are just making up titles to the myths, which does not seem appropriate. Thanks. SAJ (T) 06:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Frustrated grapes

Grapes posted a frustrated reply to my response on the matter of TV:OVERVIEW, then withdrew it and then expressed frustration. Maybe one thing we should be doing as WikiProject Television members is a little outreach? I can't say I'm very good at that, but maybe as a team, we need to challenge ourselves by inviting people who are obviously here to contribute? Grape is typically a good editor. Koala15 I wish would start communicating more, especially with edit summaries. There are some other editors I tend to consider constructive, like FilmandTVFan28, although I wish they would be better with sourcing. If we fleshed out the project, we would be better able to challenge confirmation bias and come up with ideas that are better suited for academics. Just a thought. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

New Lost Girl (season 5) article submitted

Hello, Aussie. I created the Season 5 episodes article, templates included (image awaits release of DVD), and submitted it for review an hour or so ago. The current so-called "Lost Girl (season 5)" article is actually a redirect to the "List of Lost Girl episodes" article. I don't know how to delete the redirect.

Wikipedia's instructions for creating a new article are somewhat of a runaround and not as direct and clear as they should be. Don't know how it happened but two submissions appear for the same article -- when all I wanted to do was edit some minor errors that I didn't catch the first time around. I'm hoping that what I corrected and saved is going to be the article that appears as "Lost Girl (season 5)". But I'm concerned about how it shows up on the submissions page:<be>

(1) User:Pyxis Solitary/Lost Girl (season 5)
(2) Draft:Lost Girl (season 5)

After I made the edits I followed additional instructions that suggested the article should be moved to "Draft". Are they one and the same? I have no idea. It's too discouraging to deal with any longer, but I wanted to give you a heads-up that the new article is on the way (I hope). Pyxis Solitary (talk) 13:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

You could have just created the article in your userspace and then copied and pasted over the top of Lost Girl (season 5). That's usually the easiest way, but what you've done works too. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Can you delete the redirect? Because when I edited the article after submitting it for approval a warning appeared that the article already existed and I, the editor, was asked to double check what I was doing. The redirect might cause a problem. P.S. Wikipedia's instructions for creating articles are iffy, and certainly nowhere did I see any info about being able to copy-and-paste over the top of an existing article name. That 'create your article in your user sandbox' is confusing and Wikipedia basically assumes that everyone can figure things out. (Not when I'm tired.) Pyxis Solitary (talk) 00:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I can't delete the redirect, but if you had copied and pasted the article it would simply have been a matter of overwriting the redirect code as part of the normal editing process. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
No, Aussie. You're assuming that every, single Wikipedia editor is familiar with these procedures. I've spent a lot of time and effort helping to build the Lost Girl article, yet I did not know that I could overwrite a redirect code. It is not a "normal editing process" for the majority of editors who don't engage in the constant, heavy editing of Wikipedia articles. And how could I possibly overwrite the redirect when I don't even know where to find it? When you click on the existing Lost Girl (season 5) link you are taken to the List of Lost Girl episodes main article. It's a tail chase, Aussie. Who created the redirect and WHY? Did no one give a thought to the possibility that it might cause a problem down the line?
Is there any way that you can check on the status of Draft:Lost Girl (season 5) because I am concerned about the following message at the bottom of the page: "Warning: The page Lost Girl (season 5) already exists. Please verify that it is not a copy of this submission and that this page does not need to be moved to a different title." Thanks. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 07:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Redirects are no different to any article. If you can edit an article, you can edit a redirect. When you go to a redirect page and it sends you to another article, it's a fairly simple process to get back to the redirect. For example, when you end up at List of Lost Girl episodes, scroll to the top and you'll see that the page title has text under it as follows;
List of Lost Girl episodes
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
((Redirected from Lost Girl (season 5))
Just click on Lost Girl (season 5) and it will send you straight back to the redirect, where you can edit it as you wish. The redirect was created in April 2014,[8] for reasons known only to the creator. Draft:Lost Girl (season 5) is waiting review. As explained at the bottom of the page, there is a backlog. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Infobox Australia state or territory

I would like to know why my main edit was unnecessary (the first one was just a test for the main one). These names are the proper names for these states and this used in similar situations for U.S. states (State of Texas listed in infobox) and some other federal states for other countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick Mitchell 98 (talk • contribs) 06:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

This issue was addressed in the past at, I think, Talk:Australia and "State of" and "Territory of" are not part of the state and territory names, which is why we've never used them in the 11 years that the infobox has existed. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

BSG: Final act

Well, the Battlestar Galactica situation is resolved. Twobells finally filed at DRN, then abandoned the discussion after getting his opening comments in. I suppose he thinks that's all that has to be done, but the mediator closed it as resolved with the original version of the article (minus his nonsense) agreed upon. Thank goodness that's over. --Drmargi (talk) 02:46, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

A plea from 62.177.153.123

Wondering if you can help me — Richard Santiago seems to be applying an unreasonable burden of proof on the entry for Prof Daniel Levitin's appearance on The Big Bang Theory (mentioned on both the Daniel Levitin WP page and The Big Bang Theory page). TBBT brought in this neuroscientist for a background, uncredited cameo. But that doesn't mean that proof doesn't exist of the appearance: any of the 20 million viewers of that episode could, if they were so inclined, verify that it is him (as can any WP reader). I'm a newbie to WP and don't know how to make this point. ~~ Dirk Hoegrefen Originally inserted to the User page instead of the talk page

Please note that the issue is not verifiability, but notability. Please note that Samantha Potter was not given a speaking role, but because she was credited, her appearance does pass the notability threshold, so it's listed in List of The Big Bang Theory characters#Cameo appearances. Ricardo Santiago (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Verifiability is very much the issue. Everything added to Wikipedia must be verifiable, and a check of the background to see if someone is present is not an appropriate level of verifiability. I wouldn't know Levitin from a bar of soap and his Wikipedia photo doesn't look anything like anyone who was in the scene. Something that actually says he was present is needed. WP:N applies to creating articles on individuals, it doesn't stop non-notable content from being included in articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
If Daniel Levitin died tomorrow, and his obituary said that he participated as a background actor on the show, I would still oppose including this information in the article about the show, because I don't think this information would be notable about the show, as the show has employed hundreds of background actors over the years. Therefore, even if one of them happens to have a Wikipedia article, who cares? But his participation on the show as a background actor would certainly be notable in his own biography (and please do not construe my example of his obituary as me wishing him any harm - I hope he has a long and prosperous life). Ricardo Santiago (talk) 02:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
BTW - I agree with you that Daniel Livitin's Wikipedia photo does not resemble the background actor that appears on The Big Bang Theory episode in question, but his twitter photo does resemble, to the extent that the back right side of his head can resemble a photo of his face (so in other words, the hair looks similar). Ricardo Santiago (talk) 13:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

You've got it the other way around

The categories belong on the article page not the article's category page. That's the way it is done. Look around. In fact it is usually overdone with the categories on both the article and its category page. (And point out I been fixing that) It is standard WP:Categorization. Look at The Woodcraft Folk, Friends of the Earth to see the categories on the article page. I have never seen them on the category page but not the article....William 12:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Come over and see this talk page post[9] of mine....William 13:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

More Myths Revisited

But there is a 2006 episode and 2007 episode called More Myths Revisited... What should be done? Both having the same name seems a little confusing. SAJ (T) 17:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

This isn't the first time that a series has had identically named episodes in different seasons and it won't be the last. We can't choose to selectively ignore the parts of the official episode guide that we want to. The TVGuide episode can probably be included as an alternative title. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Ok. On a side-note related to MythBusters, I am pretty sure that Buster's Cut 6-9 never actually aired. The reference to the schedule is obviously broken. I think someone saw the schedule and added them in advance. I believe they were going to air them, but changed their mind to resume episodes in 2010, since those Buster's Cut line up with the air dates for some 2010 episodes. I also cannot find it online anywhere unlike the other five. You can see only 1-5 are listed on Futon Critic (http://thefutoncritic.com/showatch/mythbusters/listings/), which has every episode listed. SAJ (T) 17:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I have 1-5 here but I've never seen 6-9 either. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Can they be removed then? SAJ (T) 18:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Ice cream colored cast tables

Hey, AL, what do you think about these often-oversized ice-cream colored cast tables that provide very little information but take up a lot of space? I just removed one from the Person of Interest article, and just loathe the damned things. They seem to me to be there largely to be decorative, because they sure don't provide much information other than seasonal billing. Worse, too few editors don't understand the SAG/AFTRA structure of billing and mis-represent cast (the worst offender being Also Starring, which is actually main cast). I'm tempted to take it to the Project TV forum, and see if we can do away with the damned things. --Drmargi (talk) 17:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I asked about them at WT:TV and there was no support for them. I do think they can have a place in character articles, and occasionally a main article, if the casting is complicated but their use should be supplemental to, not a replacement for, prose. Your removal seemed quite appropriate in my opinion. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
They're not as big a deal in the cast articles, but they are such space wasters in the seasonal and overall show articles. I was just looking at Downton Abbey's article, and someone removed a carefully constructed cast list and replaced it with one, forcing readers to another article for even the most minimal information about the characters. I'll have to go look at the discussion at the project. Do you recall roughly when that was? --Drmargi (talk) 18:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
It's not a long discussion, and it's here. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! I had a look. Great minds, as they say. Someone who doesn't contribute to the POI article started a discussion on the talk page, if you want to look in. --Drmargi (talk) 00:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AussieLegend/Archive_20&oldid=1076248869"