User talk:Doniago/Archive 16
 | 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 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. 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 in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low 
to High 
.
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
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) 12:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Goonies
That list of irrelevant films just keeps finding its way back into the article. I am really not sure what to do about it, other than request long-term page protection. Looking at the recent article history, I can't see where it was readded, but the anon. user was actually trying to remove it, and then finding himself reverted. It's interesting to see an anon. attempting to do the right thing and being reverted, first by a bot, then by an experienced user. Luckily, you were paying attention. I would like to never see that list again. Cheers! ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 17:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- I hope it's not actually being inserted frequently enough that page protection is necessary; it doesn't seem like the kind of thing multiple editors would be advocating for. I saw that the IP meant well (in fact, I'd say that was obvious), but the reverting editor had a valid reason for their reversion as well...they just weren't doing the article any favors in the process. Might be worth suggesting in a friendly manner that they pay a bit more attention next time. If problems continue with it I'd recommend a Talk page discussion as well just to firmly establish a consensus against the bloated and irrelevant film list. Doniago (talk) 18:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- All good suggestions! I will keep my eyes open. Cheers! ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 01:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I worked for the director on the Goonies, and there is a lot misinformation in the article (example, in the DVD section it was Donner, not Spielberg that shot the music video). I am trying to make corrections, but my source is, well ME. How do I do that? I also don't know what character is a "tildes."Zippidydodah (talk) 22:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- Hi there. Wikipedia has a verifiability policy which stipulates that readers should to be able to track published information back to a reliable source. Unfortunately Wikipedia editors are not considered reliable sources...otherwise anyone could come here and claim that their information was accurate. I hope you see our conundrum. Also, a tilde is "~". :) Unfortunately, unless your information has been published somewhere, I'm not sure that we'll be able to include it, though you're certainly within your rights to remove information from the article that's inaccurate and not presently sourced (or isn't actually supported by provided sources). Sorry I don't have a more optimistic answer for you. Doniago (talk) 13:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think that's exactly accurate. Verifiability means "it could be verified"; it's not the same as 'verified'. Not every single fact in every article is sourced before it is allowed, and it bears mentioning that we routinely summarize instead of quote. So, if this editor wants to make corrections, that is fine. If they are challenged, perhaps some verification will be in order. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:05, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- In general terms I agree; in this specific instance it sounded like we might be talking about replacing sourced information with information that can only be sourced to a WP editor, and I suspect that would raise a number of editors' eyebrows. Doniago (talk) 02:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, agreed. Reliable sources can be wrong at times. True propositions are potentially verifiable and false statements never, caveat emptor. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- In general terms I agree; in this specific instance it sounded like we might be talking about replacing sourced information with information that can only be sourced to a WP editor, and I suspect that would raise a number of editors' eyebrows. Doniago (talk) 02:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think that's exactly accurate. Verifiability means "it could be verified"; it's not the same as 'verified'. Not every single fact in every article is sourced before it is allowed, and it bears mentioning that we routinely summarize instead of quote. So, if this editor wants to make corrections, that is fine. If they are challenged, perhaps some verification will be in order. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:05, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Re-April 2013
Hey, the information that you removed from the Shere Khan page was actually correct. Just as Shere Khan yells out "TEN!" Mowgli is frightened to the point of dropping the stick he was intending to defend himself with. I could probably find a clip of the moment if you want proof. --Sage94 (talk) 21:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Here is the video of their final battle. So I'm just going to re-add the information and try to use better grammar, okay? --Sage94 (talk) 22:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- My apologies. I ended up making some changes there and realized that I'd misconstrued that section and your changes; please feel free to disregard/delete any messages I may have left for you with regards to inaccurate information. Doniago (talk) 15:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- That said, while you're welcome to edit what's there now, please don't just undo my changes. What was there before I edited was unnecessarily wordy and non-encyclopedic. Thanks. Doniago (talk) 15:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- Alright, I've re-added that information, but deleting Shere Khan as the main antagonist seems unneeded, as such information is so clear and blatant that a reliable source would just be a load. But It can still be found if you still don't agree. Also, the article never stated that Khan was immune to Kaa's hypnotic powers, it only stated that such a thing may be possible, and leaves it open that he may have been intuitive or observative rather than immune. I left a message on the article's talk page like you've requested.Sage94 (talk) 18:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- At WT:FILM we discussed the labeling of characters as protagonist and antagonist and the consensus was that it does constitute original research without a source, as we're imposing our own views upon what the filmmakers intended. This is also discussed in the Cast section of MOS:FILM. "It's obvious" is a poor excuse, because if it really is obvious then it's likely that reliable sources can be found in abundance. I'm not sure what you mean when you say that a source would be "a load". WP articles also should not include speculation, another form of original research. It's our place as editors to provide information that we have been given, not to contribute our own, unsourced theories. Regards. Doniago (talk) 20:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- Alright, I've re-added that information, but deleting Shere Khan as the main antagonist seems unneeded, as such information is so clear and blatant that a reliable source would just be a load. But It can still be found if you still don't agree. Also, the article never stated that Khan was immune to Kaa's hypnotic powers, it only stated that such a thing may be possible, and leaves it open that he may have been intuitive or observative rather than immune. I left a message on the article's talk page like you've requested.Sage94 (talk) 18:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Help test new SuggestBot design
We have developed an exciting new version of SuggestBot’s interface with some cool features! Volunteer to be one of the first users to try it and help us make it better by answering a short survey! If you’re interested in participating, leave us a message on SuggestBot’s user talk page. Regards from Nettrom, SuggestBot’s caretaker. 18:52, 22 April 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 recommendations. 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 in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
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) 11:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Television Sources
I would direct your attention to Wikipedia:Suggested sources under film and TV. This page is inconsistent with the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources page that you cite. If you are dissatisfied with www.tvguide.com as a source, perhaps you could make a suggestion as to which source might be might be up to your standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmcooperstein (talk • contribs) 16:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- In general tvguide.com is fine as a source...but it doesn't substantiate your assertion that the KM reference occurs in that episode of The Office, merely the existence of the episode itself. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 17:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Ok. So your position is that I need another source, which meets the wiki standards for reliability, that makes specific reference to the fact that there is a joke about KM in that episode? Think about that. If I were quoting from a book and not a TV show, would I be required to find a second source which verifies the quote from the primary source? This exceeds the standards set by academic publications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmcooperstein (talk • contribs) 18:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- I think you need to establish the significance of the KM mention in the episode of The Office, and citing only the existence of the episode does not meet that standard.
- You may wish to review WP:IPC, which specifically discusses pop culture references in Wikipedia. You're also, of course, welcome to discuss this at the article's Talk page instead; that way other editors could offer their opinions as well.
- Also, you really should sign your comments, which you can do by adding four tildes (~) to the end of them. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 18:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- Have a nice day. Doniago (talk) 19:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- To be clear, you provided links that established the existence of the episode and even the existence of the quote within the episode, which is good work even though I'm not sure the latter is a reliable source. That said, you still haven't provided any link that establishes the significance of the quote, only its existence. I noticed that there's a note in that section that specifically mentions that items should have their significance demonstrated by secondary sources. I strongly recommend you review the other items in that section and their associated references, and if you're still having concerns about this discuss the matter at the article's Talk page so that other editors can weigh in, since it appears we're having difficulty communicating with each other. Regards. Doniago (talk) 12:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Brewster, New York in popular culture
I was going to start a whole new message on this subject, but I see that somebody else has something similar; What is it going to take to convince you that the references to Brewster, New York in TV shows such as That Girl and The Sopranos are legitimate? Brewster is frequently mentioned in the dialogue, and books that cover television frequently mention that Ann Marie and her parents are from Brewster. Of course the actual scenes were filmed somewhere in Southern California, but I forget the exact location, and it's completely irrelevant anyway. I can't find anything regarding Tony Soprano's sister living there yet, but I can keep trying. -------User:DanTD (talk) 01:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- Secondary sourcing that actually discusses these occurrences beyond the simple fact of their existence. Wikipedia articles should focus on pop culture references that garner some sort of notice, not every single occurrence. As I said above, this is discussed at WP:IPC. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 02:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Opinion
Could you opine on this matter? Regards — Robin (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Judd Winick?
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Writing and art career
[edit]Comics
In April 2013 Random House announced that it had acquired the graphic novel series HILO from Judd Winick, with the first book to be published in Spring 2015
Writing and art career
http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/childrens/childrens-book-news/article/56869-rights-report-week-of-april-15-2013.html#path/pw/by-topic/childrens/childrens-book-news/article/56869-rights-report-week-of-april-15-2013.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.210.185 (talk) 18:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
More of your two cents
I know you're already involved, but Salix has offered a suggestion. I don't knoooow. What do you think?! I ask you given your status an one of the established article regulars. Discussion here. AmericanDad86 (talk) 23:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Source for University of Oklahoma on Fred Haise
Hey, I didn't see any of the material in the infobox sourced so I didn't bother to provide the source for the alma mater. It is from his biography that is referenced on the page. Okheric (talk) 15:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- Fair enough, but since the info isn't listed in the text of the article itself (and maybe it should be) it should be cited in the infobox. Doniago (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Verifiability vs likelihood to be challenged
Hi Doniago. I can see why you had that "deletionist" ANI discussion... :-) The discussion there included the differentiation between referencing existing text and newly added text (some argued that it was more important to source newly added text). Consider the following example from/about Futurama Hyperchicken with the existing description:
The Hyperchicken (voiced by Maurice LaMarche) is a large blue/green rooster-like attorney with southern mannerisms and a pince-nez perched on his beak. He is a terrible lawyer, and routinely loses cases for the main characters. The hyperchicken is a parody of "folksy" southern lawyers such as Matlock, Atticus Finch, and Looney Tunes character Foghorn Leghorn. In a deleted scene from Into the Wild Green Yonder, he is named Matcluck.
and the text that I added
The inspiration for many of the mannerisms of the Hyper-Chicken character comes from Jimmy Stewart's character Paul Biegler in the movie Anatomy of a Murder
I'm curious: when you are going through and checking other people's edits, reading newly added text, do you consider the 'context' of where it is added? For example, in the example above, the last two sentences are IMO just as unlikely (or likely) to be challenged as what I added - the difference is that some of it is "existing text". And all of it is unsourced anyway. So why the inconsistency?
I'm not being a dick about you reverting my addition (I'll leave that article be) - I'm just genuinely curious about the above, and would implore you to put some weight on the part of the verifiability policy that says "Wikipedia's Verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged" (in my specific 2nd edit, I admit my faux-pas that I challenged it myself). I.e. consider the "gravitas" of what was just added, and use the opportunity to look at/edit the surrounding text as well. (I've added to watchlist, so will come back here later) Katana (talk) 16:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- The other sentences probably should be challenged as well, but I'd tag them in order to give interested editors a few months to fix the problem before I removed them, or possibly moved them to the Talk page.
- Normally I'm doing new material patrolling, not fully reviewing articles at the same time, so existing material is more likely to be overlooked by me. Of course, nothing compels Wikipedia editors to fully review articles and correct everything they can in one shot...I suspect that would cause more problems than it would solve. :)
- Hope this helps! Doniago (talk) 16:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I'd argue that your second-to-last sentence relates to the point "the other side" was trying to make in the ANI discussion; that leaving in new stuff which is unlikely to be challenged (and as in this case, something which one is not super-likely to find a written source for) is also a way to improve an article in small steps. But I see your side, and I've made my point as well, so /out. Katana (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Anthony Kiedis
Might I ask why you continue to remove his alias/nicknames from his page? These were names he went by. Cole Dammett was actually his onscreen name as a child actor which he used in a few television shows and movies. I even provided a link with direct quotes from Kiedis' book mentioning all of these names that he went under or were called. Tony Flow was his alias/nickname early on and was even in the band's name prior to becoming Red Hot Chili Peppers. Jason1978 (talk) 02:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- Can you provide a diff showing that I've removed them since a citation was provided? Thanks! Doniago (talk) 19:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Mark Salling edit
hi Doniago this is User:Ranikh13 i apologize for not giving the right source for my edit the other day about Mark Salling's religious views in the category section. here the links to prove my statement: Link 1: in the trivia section line 16 "in real life he is a christian"
Link 2: this link provides a quote from Mark Salling "I personally have a relationship with Jesus Christ… and I count on that myself."
Thank you for your time --Ranikh13 (talk) 06:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- Wikis are not considered reliable sources and shouldn't be used for citation purposes, but I believe you can cite perezhilton.com without any problems, if you haven't already done so. If we're just talking about adding a category, the category must be supported by information within the article itself, so if there isn't already one, you should add a supporting statement to the article, with the citation. Cheers! Doniago (talk) 12:42, 9 May 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 recommendations. 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 in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
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) 00:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
The Fifth Element
Hi Doniago. I noticed that of the top 10 contributors to the page The Fifth Element, we are the only two that have made edits this year (the top 2 contributors haven't edited the article since 2010 and 2009 respectively), so you're the only person I am contacting about this. I don't know if you're still interested in the article but I hope you are. I have recently made over 30 edits to the page. I have removed all the dead links and found replacements, I have added about a dozen new references and I have expanded several areas. I'm doing this as I intend to nominate the article for good article status. Before I do I thought I'd ask the opinion of another experienced editor who is interested in the article of what they think needs doing. Any suggestions? Can you see any areas that could use improvement? I'd rather get issues ironed out before I got to GA review, so as to make the nomination less complicated. Freikorp (talk) 14:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hey there, thanks for asking! My most immediate concerns are that the Production and Home Media sections have a number of unsourced statements. I really think that needs to be addressed one way or another. Doniago (talk) 18:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. I've got the home media section pretty well sorted now. Production has been much better referenced though it still has a couple blanks. I'll probably nominate the article shortly, if you could keep an eye on any talk page discussion of the ga review that would be appreciated. :) Freikorp (talk) 05:09, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Animal Farm
Hi there ^_^ I noticed that you removed an edit I made to Animal Farm regarding allegories, so I went back and added it back with citations and references. I do appreciate the work you do on Wikipedia to maintain quality of articles! We always need editors who care about Wikipedia and work to make it the best reference source available to everyone :) I noticed from your talk page that you support WP:BURDEN, which is great! Carefully balancing WP:BURDEN with WP:PRESERVE is another thing that maintains high quality in Wikipedia articles and ensures that those visiting Wikipedia for information can learn and grow and, hopefully, also become future Wikipedia contributors!
Keep up the good work ^_^ --AutoGyro (talk) 18:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for your kind note, and especially thank you for adding sources to your information! Happy editing! Doniago (talk) 18:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
I have ...
... left a comment on the RfC insisting editor's talk page to encourage them to understand that further action is not always desirable. I hope I have couched it in even handed terms with sufficient decent advice to allow them to consider their next action with good logic. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Is it wrong that I'm morbidly curious to see how things will develop if they don't stop banging their drum? Doniago (talk) 17:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Me too :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- At least I'm not the only horrible person then. :p Doniago (talk) 19:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Advising someone to think carefully before proceeding and then being wryly potentially amused should they carry on does not make one bad :) Fiddle Faddle 19:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- At least I'm not the only horrible person then. :p Doniago (talk) 19:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Me too :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Quotations inside/outside
I understand what you're getting at, but either way it's a loophole. The policy I gave you reads "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the English of that nation," and the name of the article is "American" Dad and has focused heavily on American subjects. Not only that but there's a policy that such debate about the issue is counterproductive and that the punctuation should follow the majority variants of the article. The majority of that article has punctuation inside. AmericanDad86 (talk) 19:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
It also says here that to initiate such a debate as you did with me is useless and counterproductive. That is, an article that mainly uses one form of the variant, should be continually used so as to be consistent. I was making that section consistent with all the other sections. You have now made it inconsistent with all the other sections. AmericanDad86 (talk) 19:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- I wasn't trying to initiate a debate with you, I was trying to point you to what MOS:LQ says about where to place punctuation with regards to quotation marks. It's a Wikipedia-wide standard that applies regardless of nationality. The first sentence reads, unambiguously, "On Wikipedia, place all punctuation marks inside the quotation marks if they are part of the quoted material and outside if they are not." In fact, nationality isn't even brought up under that guideline.
- Consistency isn't the point. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If the other sections are inconsistent, then they should be updated as well if they are in violation of the guideline. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 19:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- I have initiated a discussion at the article's Talk page and requested opinions at WT:TV. Doniago (talk) 19:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Season 8, 9
Hi Doniago,
I'm just letting you know that I found sources for Angry Dad's position in this debate Talk:List of American Dad! episodes#Season issue again. I didn't realize there were so many sources that supported his position which is rather contradictory to yours. I'm supporting the move along with Angry Dad and will be letting him know.AmericanDad86 (talk) 22:14, 14 May 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) 01:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)