Talk:Expanded Universe (book)

Latest comment: 6 years ago by Anarchyte in topic Requested move 11 May 2018

Fair use rationale for Image:Eu80.jpg

edit
 

Image:Eu80.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Requested move 11 May 2018

edit
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. No consensus supporting such a move. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:12, 18 May 2018 (UTC)Reply


Expanded Universe (book)Expanded Universe – Per WP:DIFFCAPS, this is unnecessary disambiguation. The only other topic which mentions this exact phrase as an alternate name is Star Wars expanded universe, and a hatnote will help readers get there faster than hunting for it on the existing target of the redirect. Netoholic @ 02:43, 11 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

  • Support per discussion below and the placing of a hatnote. Oppose and strongly support redirecting Expanded Universe and Expanded universe to Expansion of the universe as primary topic. Many readers will upper-case 'Universe' when looking for 'universe'. The long discussions on that topic (upper or lower-case universe) on Wikipedia show that upper-casing Universe is in common use. Looking for 'Expanded universe' should take readers to the probable sought-for scientific topic and not the fictional-related phrasing. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:08, 11 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • I'm with you on the "Universe" part, but I don't see how anyone looking for the cosmological topic would search for "Expanded" rather than "expanding" or "expansion". -- Netoholic @ 16:51, 11 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • "Expanded" is just another way of saying it, and I was surprised that these topics weren't already redirected there. But that's just my point-of-view, and I can see yours equally as well. Full disclosure (for the fun of it and telling this here is in context). In 1979 I initiated and then in 1980 attended the birthplace honoring for Heinlein in Butler, Missouri, was given a place in the second car during the only parade he ever had in his honor, and introduced him and his wife Virginia at the dinner. Within the week he mailed me a copy of Expanded Universe, with a nice personalized inscription, in thanks for that event. A good memory, and a nice opportunity to meet and spend time with such an influential and intelligent author. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:02, 11 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • While I don't think its likely searchers of cosmology would land here, I wouldn't oppose a 2nd hatnote pointing to that. But since there is no real direct competition for this exact title, I don't want to inconvenience readers look for the book by disambiguating for such a rare reason. Would you support the move request if we did that? Nice story, BTW. --Netoholic @ 17:31, 11 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
Yes, that makes sense. I'll revise my ivote and you work up the hatnote. Good solution. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.