Archives

/Archive 1/Archive 2/Archive 3/Archive 4

Heads up; congrats. ;) · AndonicO ^Engage. 03:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. That's amazing. I didn't understand it the first time around, but now I get it. lolz. --haha169 (talk) 18:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm less concerned about spoilers and more concerned about how rapidly a 52 issue weekly series could get out of hand!! ;)

See Talk:Enigma (DC Comics) for my thoughts on how to deal with the character for now (as we want to avoid speculation after all). (Emperor (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Yes that is going to be tricky - I'm hoping to catch this in the trades so would hope it becomes more self-policing - it should just need a bit of a shove at the start. (Emperor (talk) 21:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

You really should learn Wikipedia Policy. It states that unverified material should be taken out of articles, that is all this user is doing. Also it states that you dont just take it all out because of an obviously large gap, you do it in stages. Thanks, yours. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 15:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time also. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 14:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you erase this article?

Why is there still a link to it from spin-off and why haven't you deleted List of television spin-offs too? Mind you, I am not suggesting that you should erase this list too, but I want an answer to why the work made at List of comics spin-offs has been obliterated. John Anderson (talk) 22:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, since when is bad article quality a reason for deletion? Wouldn't it be better to develop the article? The article was the same as that for television, so the same "problems" you mention has to apply to both. And if you delete a page, you delete the links to it too, that's basic. John Anderson (talk) 07:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm not defending it. I just looked at a couple of "definitions" and it doesn't - as you say - fit none of the criteria. There are running characters, it is a narrative comedy.

It is not a traditional sitcom to my taste - but then neither is The League of Gentlemen and everyone seems happy with its status as a sitcom.

In the British tradition there have been sitcoms based more or less around one character who moves from place to place causing mayhem - the Worker, Some Mothers Do Have 'em - the "situation" if you like is the interaction between the mentally handicapped Bean and his environment.

I couldn't be bothered to add a citation but I see somebody else had.

Me, sore? Nah. I just don't like the way you revert and delete without engaging in dialogue. In this case you happily say Bean doesn't fit "the definition" without citing the definition you intended - by the wiki definition it fits, sort of.

In the end it is more a sitcom than a sketch show. But it's a piece of junk either way. Daisyabigael (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.55.154 (talk) 19:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Yeah, yeah, and hmm. I agree, I agree - but... Just look at all these definitions: it's all couched in "usuallys" and "commonly". Just look at Hancock! The situation often changed from week to week with little continuity in the classic sence. League of Gentlemen is a loosely linked collection of sketches that kinda come together (in later series) in a mad narrative.

I'm afraid that Bean looks more like a sitcom - narrative plot structure, recurring characters (there's his girlfriend too, as well as others), Bean interacts with the real world, it is extended beyond sketch length - than a sketch show.

But I'd rather it wasn't a sitcom, personally. I guess it was a series of one-off comedy play specials (rather in the tradition of "The Plank"). But once you put the fourteen together in syndication - it looks alot like a sitcom series - albeit a weird one.Daisyabigael (talk) 08:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC) [reply]

I really don't want to get into another argument with you mate. Say what you like - and whether I agree with you or not (and mostly I do) - enough people think of it as being a sort of sitcom for it to be so - there are authorities to cite to say so. Live with it.

Your definition of sitcom is a generality not a golden law. Who says recurring characters have to be in every episode and "interact"? You do. That ain't a rule - it's an observation.

There have been other shows where a single character moves from situation to situation - A Sharp Intake of Breath, is another example - and although they don't resemble Friends or Dad's Army (and those two are more like each other than either are like Mr Bean), all the sources I have seen have listed them as sitcom. There are character based sitcoms without narrative - The Royale Family, for example.

Let's face it, definitions are there to be developed, stretched and tested. If enough guides say Mr Bean is a sitcom, know what? - it can be cited as a sitcom!

I think the problem is that there are only three types of comedy show - sketch, variety, and sitcom. Of these three, Mr Bean is most like sitcom because a continuing character moves through plot-like narratives.

I also find your detailed knowledge of the actual show kinda worrying! Daisyabigael (talk) 13:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC) [reply]

I guess we're in 100% agreement now Duggy. That's scary isn't it?!

Genre definition is always tricky (but fun to argue about). Had a similar one about musicals - always singing and dancing? What about a classical music musical where there is neither? Do musical biographies count? South Park the Movie? and so on.

Bean is posiibly in a separate catagory of its own - or with very few others.

TV comedies turned into movies sounds a good list - there aren't that many that weren't originally sitcoms but a change of category would clean up things like Bean, League of Gentlemen etc.

Have a nice weekend! Daisyabigael (talk) 12:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on a fanfic involving the BSG TOS universe, ran across your input on the Battlestar Galactica units article, and would like to follow up with you if possible, on the measurement systems and what you might invision, were the system to be retcon'd into something faithful to the spirit of the original, but actually workable. Please feel free to respond to this on my talk page. Thanks! Capedude2005 (talk) 04:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duggy, please be careful not to edit war at List of science fiction film and television series by lengths Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Also, discussion involves more than just a statement on the talk page followed by another revert. (In other words, discussion cannot conclude if it has not even begun.) You have now reverted four times, against the original poster and two other editors; that puts you clearly in violation of the three-revert rule. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made an uncommented change (not good form), someone changed it back and I reverted with explanation. Now if a contributor wants to change it back and have a discussion, that's fine, but you've reverted it and demanded a discussion that you're not interested in participating in. That just doesn't make sense. The last time I didn't revert, I commented out the entry, leaving it there for future readdition, but removing it for accuracy. If you're in this as an Admin you should be there to solve an edit war, not cause one which is what you seem to be doing. If you're in this as a contribution, then join the discussion don't just demand one. Duggy 1138 (talk) 07:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for discussing, rather than reverting again. My take on this is that one editor (the IP) added the material, and another felt it warranted inclusion after you removed it. That being the case, it should remain in while a discussion is under way. What you should have done is to then discuss it before reverting twice more. As mentioned on the talk page, I've placed a request for commehnt on the issue to resolve it. Thanks again. --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took it as someone added it, I removed it without saying way (stupid move) and someone reverted it as vandalism. Without a follow-up but a contributor, it's impossible to say whether it is support of the Highlander entry or a mistaken belief that I was being a vandal. Duggy 1138 (talk) 07:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough; that is why comments are so important, especially given the amount of actual vandalism on the site. --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've fallen out of practise doing it, which isn't a good thing. Let this be a lesson to me.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 07:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when one is reverting vandalism all day long, sometimes WP:AGF gets strained a bit as well. Kudos for stopping to discuss the matter as per the above; frankly, I much prefer resolving issues this way, even if it takes more time. Let's see what comes out of the RfC; I have heard the series described as sci-fi, and as not being sci-fi, so it is hard to make a call. --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did "Science Fiction, Fantasy & Popular Culture" at University and we spent an entire lecture discussing the Definitions of science fiction and another discussing the definition of Fantasy. I also got into the discussion during a "Literature in Translation" lecture. It's not a clean-cut definition, unfortunately. People draw the line in different places. Since Highlander 2 puts a SF spin on everything it could be argued that although it looks like Fantasy it's actually got a hidden SF backstory... but then Highlander 2 is generally ignored by everything else. Fortunately whoever suggested Buffy didn't add it as it's mostly Fantasy/Supernatural but it has side elements of SF. The X-Files is half-and-half with the original premise (Aliens) being SF and them *trying* to explain most of the Supernatural scientifically, so I'm not too worried about that one. Is/isn't SF can be a big, messy argument. Duggy 1138 (talk) 07:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it can. Sounds like an interesting course, though! Well, thanks for your patience - you may have seen the response from WP Highlander on the talk page. I've rewound the page to your original edit. Cheers! --Ckatz^chat_spy 10:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we got a result and a quick one which is good. Thanks for your patience. Duggy 1138 (talk) 10:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Best bet is to move the "current" articles and then merge in the longer lists from the articles - we'll want the "current" lists to redirect to the publications list anyway so we might as well do it the easy way. It'll also preserve all the history, even if we are largely over-writing the article.

We should be able to get something passable together pretty quickly as actual lists and then work towards converting them to tables (I wonder if find and replace can be used to do a quick and dirty changeover). Either way we should be able to a fairly smooth and staged transition - I have worked on all those titles lists and they are pretty solid so removing the columns and other formatting will give us a good workable list which can then be converted. It might take longer to get a fully rounded set of articles (with dates, etc. added in) but it should be useful at the various stages. (Emperor (talk) 01:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

You're welcome. I'm always happy to help out where I can :) Stephen Day (talk) 02:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep that kind of thing has been giving me The Fear for a while. The only upside is that they have got their house in order (partly) as at one point every issue of Star Wars Tales had their own article and they have subsequently been merged into the trades (and has since been merged back to the main article) but those trade articles were inadequate [1]. Just listing the credits and a snippet of plot does not make for a good article - that is why we link to things like the databases (which are designed to for that kind of thing) and places like Wookiepedia (which is where you might expect such articles). The merged main article is poor but at least it is somewhere to start. (Emperor (talk) 14:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I think once we get a decent article together looking at the actual comics we will get a better idea of what there actually is and how solid they are as well as the best way to deal with them (merging, sketching out an article that meets standard, etc.), (Emperor (talk) 14:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I'm a fan too but it looks like fannishness gone wild. If you look over the Star Trek and Transformers articles they, at least aim to come up to some kind of standard but the others seem to have gone rogue and made up their own standards. The main problem is the weight of numbers, we need a clear idea of the scope of the problem which means crafting a decent opening article. we can start from scratch with Star Wars but it might take more work with Buffy. Once we can see things a bit more clearly we can work to impose some kind of order on everything. (Emperor (talk) 23:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Perhaps steady focus over time will help - I have tended to leave them to the franchises fans but that has probably not been the best approach. I'm going to check through the Star Trek articles and make sure they have infoboxes and basic references, which might give me a better idea about the Star Trek ones.

Do you fancy sandboxing a Star Wars comics main article? I'll be looking around for interviews and other information and might as well drop it in somewhere. (Emperor (talk) 00:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

No problem. There is no great rush. (Emperor (talk) 00:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

What's the reasoning behind the creation of a separate list from the article? Not only "lists of" are unencyclopedic in general but Marvel Essential, Marvel Masterworks and Marvel Omnibus aren't organised like that. DC Archives are but I always thought it was a mistake, having to hop to a second article to find out. Without a solid reason I'd rather we simplify by doing without the "list of" --Leocomix (talk) 12:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC) Ok I read it and unless there is more than what is on that page I think you misunderstood the intent of the discussion which was about list of current publications which are not updated. Showcase Presents is a collection name. As a collection the volumes are regularly kept in print as opposed to monthly comic books and most other collections. I also regularly update those because it's easy to keep track of, there are sites dedicated to that type of collections which are popular since they reprint "classics". As a suggestion, I'd say that you leave alone or restore as one article the collections Showcase Presents, DC Archives, Marvel Essential, Marvel Omnibus, Marvel Masterworks. --Leocomix (talk) 15:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Lists of comic book publications, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Lists of comic book publications has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Lists of comic book publications, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 04:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article List of Showcase Presents publications, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

indiscriminate list

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Stifle (talk) 12:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've de-proded it because I think it should stay, obviously, however, I am interested to know what "indiscriminate list" means. Duggy 1138 (talk) 12:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basically it refers to a list that WP:LC or WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies to. I'll probably AFD it later. Stifle (talk) 12:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove the entry for Richie Brockelman, Private Eye in the Television pilot article? | Loadmaster (talk) 15:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You may want to check Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of limited series. You tagged the article as a prod and now is at AfD, maybe you would like to leave some comments. Greetings. --Tone 12:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here. The PM does not need to be in the HoR. Timeshift (talk) 09:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI. Ikip (talk) 22:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make statements attacking people or groups of people. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Cind.amuse 12:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Duggy,

I will look into this source and verify how reliable it is. I will try to get back to you within a few days. If you want an immediate response from me regarding this issue, then; I agree with you. I think if Ricahrd Armatige says what he says, then I think we can take it as that.

Regards, SilvestertheCat (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on others' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large.

Your messages [2] to the editor above are intended to inappropriately influence the outcome of a discussion of a controversial edit regarding the reliability of a source and subsequent consensus on article content in Spooks and Lucas North. They lack neutrality, are directed at a partisan editor, and suggest a possible outcome. Please refrain from any further activity, or a report will be filed at the appropriate Administrator's Noticeboard. 130.182.29.28 (talk) 00:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have a question for which I need objective opinions. Can you offer your viewpoint here? I really need it in order to proceed. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of comics by DC, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The section needs to be expanded (ala Friday the 13th (franchise)#Develeopment or Halloween (franchise)#Development. The info is probably on the other pages, but hasn't been moved there. The simple fact that someone has not expanded the section doesn't mean that it should be completely deleted until it is full fleshed out.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it "damages" the page. That's a bit extreme don't you think? The page is hardly a model for anything, so it isn't damaging anything. It needs to be expanded and probably rewritten to be in present tense as opposed to future tense. Again, none of that is reason to just delete it entirely simply because you don't want to look at it in its current format, as opposed to expanding it yourself.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am improving it...at my own pace. I don't need people blanking sections though because I'm not working to their speed. I rewrote Friday the 13th (franchise) and Halloween (franchise) at my pace, frankly because I have a real life where I work 40+ hours a week. I'll continue to work this article at my pace. I've put a bit more info in the section for the time being.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Duggy, thanks for your edits to Gothic Fiction. Edit summariese are super helpful to other editors in allowing us to follow what's gone on and why. Cheers Span (talk) 03:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Doubts have been raised about whether Image Comics every actually published a series called "Bloodmaster Scarlet" (see Talk:List of Image Comics publications.) It seems that you originally added this title, in an edit back in October 2008. Do you remember what your source was? --kundor (talk) 05:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Can you offer your opinion on the matter discussed at the bottom of this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of Archie Comics imprint publictions. Since you had some involvement with the List of Archie Comics imprint publictions redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Conan (Marvel Comics) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conan (Marvel Comics) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:51, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article My Favourite Australian has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Avilich (talk) 20:24, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]