User talk:Doniago/Archive 17
 | 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. |
| Archive 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
SCA Heraldry
I am a herald in the Society and so have firsthand knowledge of the rules etc. of SCA heraldry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cforzetting (talk • contribs) 15:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- I won't dispute that, but you're not a reliable source. Information published on Wikipedia should be verifiable. Cheers! Doniago (talk) 16:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Doniago: The "Wild Kingdom" thing is a bit like recognizing the NBC peacock logo in the Futurama Anthology of Interest II episode: the show is using recognizable iconogaphy for the joke. "Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom" had a very distinctive logo, which the "Mutual of Omicron's Wild Universe" logo duplicates. That said, I found two cites: one is the IMDB entry for "Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom," which lists "Naturama" under "Connections": "Futurama: Naturama (2012) (TV Episode) 'Mutual of Omicron's Wild Universe'"; IMDB's listing for "Naturama" runs the link in the opposite direction. And at theinfosphere.com, the Futurama wiki, the same allusion gets noted. Zoidbergmd (talk) 01:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- Wikis aren't reliable sources for the same reason we can't cite Wikipedia itself as a source, though if the Infosphere includes a reliable source then we could use that source. IMDb isn't considered a reliable source either per WP:RS/IMDb.
- If this boils down to "it's obvious" and we can't find a reliable source that's noted it, then I suppose the question is why it's significant enough for us to note it here. When it comes to popular culture, we should really be noting why something's significant, not just adding trivia...which as you noted yourself can be found at IMDb. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 12:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- Doniago -- excellently said. The reason it's significant, I'd argue, is that the producers cared enough about the joke to make it the epi's central element. But a viewer who doesn't know what Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom was will be left cold; it's a plain-sight Easter egg they won't recognize. This is the kind of thing I often turn to Wiki for: when I sense an allusion in a film or book I've missed. So I'd argue the significance is that Futurama did design the whole show around the idea. That in the 1970s and 80s you had a terrestrial show sponsored by a mid-country insurance agency, and a millenium later you'd have an extraterrestrial show sponsored by a planetary despot's insurance agency; when we note it, we let the reader discover a central joke they would otherwise have missed. Zoidbergmd (talk) 02:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks! Glad I made sense. :) What I would actually recommend, because I'm almost certain it's mentioned there, is, if other sources can't be located, using the DVD commentary as a source. It's considered reliable and other Futurama articles have done the same thing. There may be additional info beyond the fact of the reference as well. Doniago (talk) 18:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- Found it in Cinema Blend's review of the Season 7 DVD set; thanks for the nod in that direction! Zoidbergmd (talk) 19:21, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks! Glad I made sense. :) What I would actually recommend, because I'm almost certain it's mentioned there, is, if other sources can't be located, using the DVD commentary as a source. It's considered reliable and other Futurama articles have done the same thing. There may be additional info beyond the fact of the reference as well. Doniago (talk) 18:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- Doniago -- excellently said. The reason it's significant, I'd argue, is that the producers cared enough about the joke to make it the epi's central element. But a viewer who doesn't know what Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom was will be left cold; it's a plain-sight Easter egg they won't recognize. This is the kind of thing I often turn to Wiki for: when I sense an allusion in a film or book I've missed. So I'd argue the significance is that Futurama did design the whole show around the idea. That in the 1970s and 80s you had a terrestrial show sponsored by a mid-country insurance agency, and a millenium later you'd have an extraterrestrial show sponsored by a planetary despot's insurance agency; when we note it, we let the reader discover a central joke they would otherwise have missed. Zoidbergmd (talk) 02:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Changes to No Man Has Gone Before
Hi, you just reverted my change to the page [Where no man has gone before]. I remembered the line being used on the movie Cruel Intentions, then I looked it up to double check it with IMDB, what do you think would be a good way to source it if IMDB is not ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homerotl (talk • contribs) 16:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- Ideally you should find a secondary source that makes note of the fact that the line is brought up in the film, in accordance with WP:IPC. My gut feeling though is that it's probably not something anyone (aside from us) really took note of, and ultimately constitutes trivia and isn't really appropriate for inclusion. Hope this helps, sorry I don't have any better ideas. Doniago (talk) 16:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Changes to (Don't fear) The Reaper
Sorry friend, I don't subscribe to the 'significance theory' of 'pop culture'; I deal with fact only. Just listed the media sources where the song was used.
'More Cowbell;' has its own page, and I placed a link to the entire segment. A description of the SNL skit is unwarranted on the page itself; the skit is subservient to the song, not the other way around. Please respect the song, and the edits. thanks.
- This was discussed at the article's Talk page previously. Please discuss there before re-adding pop culture items that lack clear significance. You may also wish to review WP:IPC. Doniago (talk) 14:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
I've reviewed theWP:IPC and adjusted my edits accordingly. Thanks.
Leon Askin
Hi Don, regarding my recent addition to Leon Askin, the topic of his parents death and experience as a holocaust survivor, the information source is the Wikipedia page for the show Hogan's Heroes. under the sub-heading - Jewish Actors http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hogan%27s_Heroes#Jewish_actors
I don't really have time to learn the ins and outs of Wiki editing, but would hope you allow my changes to be posted under Mr. Askins' page thx Joe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.35.45.76 (talk) 16:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Joe. We can't use other Wikipedia articles as references per WP:CIRCULAR, but if the information there is cited then all you should need to do is copy and paste the citation used. Please let me know if you have any questions. Doniago (talk) 16:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
OK, how about this http://www.findadeath.com/forum/showthread.php?1557-Leon-Askin-Gen-Burkhalter-Hogans-s-Heroes
scroll down to 4. or this http://www.tommcmahon.net/2004/02/the_incredible_.html
Again, I'm not wiki savvy enough to site reference, and forgive me I don't have time to learn, so maybe you can help me and the wiki community by making it proper. I did the research at least :) thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.35.45.76 (talk) 17:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
videos as reference
hello, seems like Wikipedia:Videos as references implies using imdb as a source. maybe that page should be updated seeing as how imdb is not a valid source anymore. probably only half a million articles in wikipedia using imdb as a ref anyhow. Compn (talk) 04:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- I believe that page refers to providing a link directly to the video itself, via Youtube or such; as far as I'm aware IMDb doesn't host videos, or at least not ones that we could link to directly. You're welcome to bring this up at the talk page for that essay if you'd like though. Happy editing! Doniago (talk) 13:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.
IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.
Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:
- Views/Day
- Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
- Quality
- Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.
The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:
- Content
- Is more content needed?
- Headings
- Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
- Images
- Is the number of illustrative images about right?
- Links
- Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
- Sources
- For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 16:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Flickr RFC
Hi, as a recent past editor, wondering if you might be able to chime in on the Flickr talk page to help resolve an extended dispute. Jakerome (talk) 16:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Repeated Personal Attacks and Misrepresentations by User:AmericanDad86
 | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
User:AmericanDad86 has made repeated personal attacks against me and blatantly misrepresented situations at Talk:American Dad!. They were previously blocked for this sort of behavior, but when I filed a request for admin involvement at WP:ANI I was essentially disregarded and the matter was, in my opinion inaccurately, portrayed as a content dispute. It is not a content dispute; my issue is with how they are addressing me. I would be happy to launch an RFC/U if that is the appropriate step, but as noted I've had trouble getting other editors to be involved in this. Please help. Doniago (talk) 04:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Here's an odd suggestion.
- Treat it, at least at first, as a content dispute. Go to, for example, third opinion, or, if appropriate, the edit war noticeboard, etc. At the very least, you'll gather more evidence for a RfC/U. At the most, the dispute might actually be resolved. --I dream of horses @ 04:33, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I honestly feel like I shouldn't have to take that sort of roundabout approach. I'm baffled that the ANI folks proclaimed it a content dispute when I thought I made it clear that conduct was my issue. OTOH, I suppose it can't hurt anything and may even call attention to problems with the existing system. WP:3O would probably be summarily rejected as other editors have chimed in regarding the underlying dispute itself though. Doniago (talk) 04:39, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- My apologies, I meant to thank you for your feedback at least, though I'd admittedly possibly like to hear from other editors as well. Would you mind if I reopened my request? Doniago (talk) 04:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry for taking so long to get back.
- Anyways, even if things get summarily rejected (as you've put it), that could be held up as evidence to the fact that it's not a content dispute.
- I'm not 100% if {{helpme}} was really designed for your kind of questions. They're rather complicated. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 22:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.
IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.
Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:
- Views/Day
- Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
- Quality
- Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.
The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:
- Content
- Is more content needed?
- Headings
- Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
- Images
- Is the number of illustrative images about right?
- Links
- Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
- Sources
- For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Warm Bodies (film)
I think the fact it is stated in the article that the film and novel both parallel Romeo + Juliet, adding the corresponding characters to the cast would be a no-brainer... Additionally, adding extra information shouldn't be deleted when it is helpful to demostrating the parallel between the two stories, as my edit was. It's not original research, it's additional information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.129.99.5 (talk) 17:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End Plot Summary
In regards to the plot summary section of Pirates 3, I can see that my summary was probably too lengthy for the article, however, part of what I was trying to convey with my revsions are the motives of the characters and how the turns of the narrative influence those. The second two Pirates films, particularly the third, are sometimes hard to follow because of the way the characters cross and double cross each other to achieve their own agendas. The Manual of Style for film articles allows longer summaries for films with unconventional structures or complicated plots, I would argue that Pirates 3 qualifies for the latter. Even the How to write a plot summary page says that a primary function of summaries is to help explain the story as it's often a resource for people who may not have understood it. In it's currenty state, I feel the plot summary from P3 does more to confuse character motivations than it does to help, and that was why I altered it. SolarSurfer (talk) 22:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- I appreciate what you're going for, but you should discuss this at the movie's Talk page so that a consensus can be reached to allow for a plot summary that's significantly longer than WP:FILMPLOT recommends. You're probably going to encounter a fair amount of opposition as well, as other films with arguably equally complicated plots tend to not have summaries much beyond what the guideline recommends. Actually, I'd recommend looking around to see if you can find some examples you can use while making your case and possibly get a feel for how these discussions tend to play out. If you wish to pursue it, I wish you luck, but I don't know that I'd be able to agree with you; I'd have to give it some thought and I'd like to see what other editors thought before I offered my own opinion. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 22:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)