Talk:Full Measure (Breaking Bad)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

File:Fullmeasure.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Fullmeasure.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 14 March 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Fullmeasure.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 05:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 December 2015[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This request is closed as out-of-process. I will open a new RM. Wbm1058 (talk) 02:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Full Measure → Full Measure – Article was moved to the disambiguated title without discussion. Full Measure, now a DAB page, lists just one other topic and the Breaking Bad episode should be restored as the primary topic per WP:RECENTISM as the other topic, a talk show, debuted recently. WP:TWODABS also says a hatnote works in cases like this. – Calidum T|C 05:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Spshu (talk) 18:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I was not even given any time to contest this request as not even 1.25 hours pass to allow any one to contest. My disambiguated of the article was "without discussion" was the reason for the request, but does so in a manner that disregards discussion. RECENTISM is an essay, but it does indicate that items should be weight properly. So, some how an episode of a fictional TV show should get precedent over a news program just because the TV show is newer? A TV show should weight higher over an episode that is only a fraction of a TV show's run. That would be a skewed position towards Breaking Bad which should be against Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I would have never searched for a Breaking Bad episode as would not even expect to find one. Full Measure with Sharyl Attkisson should be the article at "Full Measure" as people commonly refer to the show sans the host (This Week (ABC TV series) sans "with George Stephanopoulos", Meet the Press sans "With Chuck Todd", Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, etc.) and the host may change the longer the show is active. But because the Breaking Bad episode preexisted, the article was started as Full Measure with Sharyl Attkisson instead of Full Measure. Spshu (talk) 18:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support restore of (Breaking Bad) completely concur with User:Spshu exercising common sense per WP:MOVE and WP:DISAMBIGUATION. Note that full measure was redirecting to the math concept, I have now converted that full measure redirect to a dab. Full Measure (disambiguation) should probably redirect to that dab also. Not even sure why this episode is notable when most of Category:Breaking Bad (season 3) episodes are redirects. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Appearently, I handle the appeal of this request move incorrectly. I was supposed to talk it over with Philg88 on his talk page. I have also inadvertently have this discussion on two talk pages (the other being Talk:Full Measure (Breaking Bad)#Requested move 29 December 2015). Since In ictu oculi has added to the discussion here, I suppose that it should continue here. Spshu (talk) 16:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please clean it up and delete one so I don't have to try to say my position in two places, where it's not always clear what support and oppose mean. Delete this malformed one and inform anyone who hasn't put corresponding comments on the other one. Dicklyon (talk) 23:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Dicklyon that's redirecting here anyway, there's only one discussion. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see; that's weird. Can't we fix things back so that the proposed renaming is more clear? Currently the proposed move is to where we already are. Dicklyon (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the recent and proposed moved; Support restoring the disambiguator (Breaking Bad) and making Full Measure a disambiguation page or redirect to disambiguation page Full measure. I think this makes it unanimous, if I understand the confusing comments above. Dicklyon (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My, what a massive pile-up we have here[edit]

Please hang tight, while I deconstruct the history and figure out what happened here. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 00:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So...

  1. Requests to revert undiscussed moves are not, except in exceptional circumstances, contestable. That's why there is no time given for appeals. It's like any "speedy" request. If the request is proper, it's done ASAP
  2. I'm having trouble getting a handle on the idea that you "inadvertently" have this discussion on two talk pages
  3. Although Spshu's methods are disruptive, and has caused a big waste of my time, their suggestion has merit. I'll make a few more edits to get this reset on the right track. Please be patient, and bear with me. Wbm1058 (talk) 02:49, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  1. If they are not contestable then why does it have a contest link?
  2. I click the contest link, which sent me here but the header box links were malformed, giving me the idea that it was in the wrong spot. I though I did not save it then added to the other page. And for a while I thought the move back was malformed given two pages were coming up instead of redirecting me.
  3. I don't know how following the contesting link would cause this disruption as I have mostly never seen a speedy move and never had to contest one. Wbm1058, thanks for the fixes, I had figured out what I did wrong, but did not have time to find out what should be done. Spshu (talk) 14:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Spshu, you may contest items while they are on Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests in the Uncontroversial technical requests section by clicking on the "(discuss)" link, or move them to the Contested technical requests section, where perhaps the concerns may be speedily resolved without the need to create a full week-long discussion. I won't say you should never contest something while it's sitting in the Requests to revert undiscussed moves section, but generally that's not a place where a request should be contested. Maybe, if there truly was a legitimate discussion prior to the move, then a valid objection could be made here. But really, just let the move be reversed, and then open a week-long discussion to propose re-doing what you had previously boldly done, that was contested and (temporarily) reversed.
But it looks to me like you went back into the page history of Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests, after the reversal of your undiscussed move was completed, and clicked on the "(discuss)" link while looking at an old version of that page. That should never be done. If I'm misunderstanding what you actually did, then please do set me straight on what you did.
I suppose I should give you the benefit of the doubt. I suppose that it's technically possible that you did not realize you were looking at an old version of the page, which needed to be purged or reloaded. Note the message near the top of WP:RM:
"Click here to purge this page".
If that was indeed the problem here, then I apologize for the admonishment. I have noticed that the Wikimedia servers behavior seems to have changed recently with regards to some aspects of how they cache pages. Wbm1058 (talk) 15:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 January 2016[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: moved. There is a consensus that the Breaking Bad episode is not the primary topic for the term "Full Measure". Jenks24 (talk) 06:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Full Measure → Full Measure (Breaking Bad) – There is no WP:primary topic for this title. Redirect Full Measure to the disambiguation at full measure. – Wbm1058 (talk) 03:05, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 04:28, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom In ictu oculi (talk) 08:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – I think this is consistent with my observation of unanimous opinion in the malformed discussion above. Dicklyon (talk) 05:51, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The dissent was by Calidum via their "request to revert an undiscussed move". So, final call... whether they still oppose or now agree this is the right move to make? Wbm1058 (talk) 14:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as common sense would indicate a TV series would have precedence over a TV series episode, even if was the submitted episode towards earning a best actors award, that would just qualify the episode for an article. Spshu (talk) 14:53, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is the primary topic for the term "Full Measure" (the capital "M" matter per WP:DIFFCAPS). Being a common-ish sounding phrase doesn't prevent this from being the primary topic. A hatnote can point readers elsewhere if needed. Also, I do appreciate that Wbm corrected the malformed move request made prior to this, though I disagree with the request itself. Calidum T|C 23:33, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DIFFCAPS does not really recommend that degree of ambiguity; quite the contrary, as I read it. Dicklyon (talk) 01:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A hatnote is just one of Wikipedia's Half Measures. Full measure (disambiguation) is a Full Measure. ;) Wbm1058 (talk) 02:09, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"The general approach is that whatever readers might type in the search box, they are guided as swiftly as possible to the topic they might reasonably be expected to be looking for..." So seeing the helpful qualifier (Breaking Bad) pop up as a suggestion in the search box will surely swiftly guide readers to their desired destination. Wbm1058 (talk) 02:22, 7 January 2016 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Full_Measure_(Breaking_Bad)&oldid=1202169310"