User talk:AussieLegend/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 → Archive 15

Sea Shepherd, sealers

Your reversion of my edit to the Sea Shepherd article was mostly off the mark. You’re right about the sealers who supposedly confronted Mr. Watson in a hotel room being Canadian, but not about the confrontation with Newfoundland sealers on the ice. The news article cited for that information uses one of the Sea Shepherd criminals as its source, there’s a video of the incident showing her account to be inaccurate at best, and the article does mention the fact that the Sea Shepherd criminals were on the ice illegally. — TheHerbalGerbil(TALK|STALK), 21:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The edit you made[1] said the the sealers were French, while the source clearly states they were Canadian and does not even mention France or French.[2] The second source,[3] says that the seal hunters threatened them, so that should not have been removed, regardless of whether or not you don't like the source for "threatened". Removal breaches our neutrality policy. The source says that they were charged with "violating seal protection regulations by approaching within half a nautical mile of a hunt", not that the protest itself was illegal. In fact it appears that it would have been entirely legal if they had stayed >0.5nm way. If you wish to add content about that you have to reflect what the source says and not "re-interpret" the source because that also breaches WP:NPOV. Given the errors in your changes, the reversion was entirely appropriate. As for today's effort,[4] the content is cited and your edit summary demonstrates a decidedly POV reason for removal. If you wish to remove the content you have to come up with a verifiable, neutral reason for doing so. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
“The edit you made[1] said the the sealers were French, while the source clearly states they were Canadian and does not even mention France or French.[2]”
Yes, I already admitted as much. I was thinking of St-Pierre et Micquelon, which is French territory, whereas the Magdalens are part of Quebec. Don’t pretend to be setting me straight.
“The second source,[3] says that the seal hunters threatened them, so that should not have been removed, regardless of whether or not you don't like the source for "threatened".”
The source does not say that at all. The source just quotes a Sea Shepherd activist characterizing the confrontation as an assault by the sealers:
“Removal breaches our neutrality policy.”
No, it does not.
“The source says that they were charged with "violating seal protection regulations by approaching within half a nautical mile of a hunt", not that the protest itself was illegal.”
Now you’re not even making any sense: ‘The protest was legal, but would have been legal if x.’
“If you wish to add content about that you have to reflect what the source says and not "re-interpret" the source because that also breaches WP:NPOV.”
You’re the one who’s doing that. The source is very clearly quoting a participant on one side of the incident.
“Given the errors in your changes, the reversion was entirely appropriate. As for today's effort,[4] the content is cited and your edit summary demonstrates a decidedly POV reason for removal. If you wish to remove the content you have to come up with a verifiable, neutral reason for doing so.”
Don’t pretend to be the authority on the exact proper interpretation of Wiki policies. It makes it that much tougher to gracefully accept that you’re wrong. — TheHerbalGerbil(TALK|STALK), 09:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
"Yes, I already admitted as much. ... Don’t pretend to be setting me straight." - I was simply identifying all the reasons your edit was flawed, as explanation of why a full reversion was necessary.
"The source just quotes a Sea Shepherd activist" - Since that was part of the source, the source does indeed say that. The source isn't just cherry-picked parts of the article.
"Now you’re not even making any sense: ‘The protest was legal, but would have been legal if x.’" - It makes perfect sense. They weren't arrested for protesting, they were arrested for being there. The law doesn't differentiate between purpose. If a group of pro-seal killing supporters, or a group of tourists armed only with cameras, had been there they would have been subject to arrest for the same reason.
"You’re the one who’s doing that. " - Um, no. As I've pointed out above, and which you've quoted, the source says they were charged with violating seal protection regulations. Your edit changed the content from "confronted by a threatening group of sealers while on the ice", which is supported by the source, to "confronted by a group of sealers while illegally protesting on the ice", which is not supported. YOU are re-interpreting the source.
"The source is very clearly quoting a participant on one side of the incident" - That's irrelevant. Most sources quote participants on one side of a conflict. Admittedly, "threatening" is probably too subjective given that only one side is presented but the youtube video you linked too seems to support that.
Since this discussion is about specific content in an article, I suggest we confine any discussion to the article's talk page. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey

Sorry for my bad English. I am Latin American. Did you realize that Nick and More is a realiable source? They before all "realiable" websites posted that will be a Iyaz Halloween So Random special episode, and they posted some sketches that will be featured in it. And you said that "is not a realibable source". Then, you edit the article and give new references from another website, who gives the same that gives us Nick and More. So??? That shows that Nick and More is a realiable source. I talked with @nickandmore in Twitter and he/she said me that all the information that they post are true including the ratings. And if you check Nick and More ratings with "tvbythenumbers" website ratings, you can find out that are THE SAME :( I think is not fair that you don't want post Nick and More references. Also, are a lot of references using Nick and More posts. OK. Goodbye. God bless you :) --Juandy004 (talk) 20:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a list of requirements that are used to determine whether or not a site is reliable. Nickandmore was discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and it does not meet the requirements of a reliable source. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

TINA2011

Wikimedia is at TINA. Come along any time today to participate in an interactive visual workshop about Wikis. Bring along your photographs and stories to participate in creation and editing of Wikipedia content. We're planning a meetup for dinner this evening, so signup and watchlist Wikipedia:Meetup/Newcastle/TINA2011. --John Vandenberg (chat) 21:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Just so you know......

I think that we're in general agreement at the Playboy Club article and the editing that has been occuring there for some time in regard to a certain prolific editor at that article. I'd like to see us stay in agreement about that article, including our current disagreement there. I have, as of this morning, removed the content that we have discussed on the article talk page because it has no reliable reference attached to the conflicting info whatsoever. Until the episode airs, who's to say which set of information is correct? After the episode airs, it will all be clear, yes? :-) The "Just so you know....." part is that I was unknowingly logged out when I made that change and my IP appears as the editor. This was completely accidental - nothing going on that would equal trying to avoid the appearance of 3RR or anything else underhanded. Just wanted to be clear on that. Thanks for your diligence. And it happened again - my apologies. Lhb1239 (talk) 15:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I do wish you had reverted Maddie.1984 completely though. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

br tags

<br> is correct HTML, <br /> is correct XHTML. With HTML5, the push to merge HTML and XHTML has ended, so no need for "/" in such tags. (It doesn't hurt, but there is no reason for it.) —MJBurrage(T•C) 01:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The point is "<br />" is the most compatible with most browsers and screen readers over a wide range of end devices. I used to use "<br>" until I saw the effect on end users. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:52, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I used to use <br />. But since it was never required by the HTML standards (recommended for HTML4), and HTML5 dropped the move to XHTML, I went back to using <br>.
What browser or reader have you seen that treats them differently ? —MJBurrage(T•C) 18:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
The most notable is probably the iphone3. As an example, some time ago my son asked me to fix a Wikipedia page because something like [[doctor]]s was displaying on his iphone3 as "doctor s" instead of doctors". I didn't manage to fix that but I did find the page displaying badly because "<br>" was used, which is when I realised that "<br />" was the better choice, given the wide usage of the iphone. I'm the IT administrator at a local school and two years ago we had a vision impaired child who used an apparently widely used screen-reader program that just couldn't handle pages that used "<br>". Strangely, it had no problems with "<br/>" but that's another issue. Since "<br />" seems to work on all devices, while "<br>" and "<br/>" don't work on all devices, it just makes sense to use "<br />" to ensure there are no problems. It's probably why when you click on the new line icon on the toolbar above, it inserts "<br />". --AussieLegend (talk) 04:54, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Wizards of Waverly Place

Thank you so much for your information, and I want to elaborate on the Hannah Montana thing. I believe that show would really have 100 episodes because there's two one hour episodes in Season 4 that count as one episode each simply because they weren't broken up to be two separate episodes. So we end up with 98. The "No Sugar, Sugar" episode was re-written and re-shot to later become to "Uptight (Oliver's Alright)" episode that would air towards the end of Season 3. So that would make 99 episodes really, but I don't think that episode would count since it was changed. However, if those two Season 4 episodes were a total of four each then "Hannah Montana" would have had a definite 100 episodes, being the second show to reach that length. But it seems Disney counts those two episodes as four episodes by their production codes counting as two episodes, and counting the original "No Sugar, Sugar" episode, that's where we get the 101 in total. But that wasn't the case broadcast-wise so I figured with Wizards reaching 100 episodes, it was basically the second show to reach that length. - Jabrona - 014:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

List of Ringer episodes

Hey AussieLegend, I was looking through the edit history for List of Ringer episodes and I see you were one of the editors who said "numbers should be written in words in prose". Could you show me the guideline? I'm having a dispute with an editor on the same page about it. Jayy008 (talk) 19:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure, it's WP:ORDINAL. The actual guideline is "As a general rule, in the body of an article, single-digit whole numbers from zero to nine are spelled out in words; numbers greater than nine are commonly rendered in numerals, or in words if they are expressed in one or two words (16 or sixteen, 84 or eighty-four, 200 or two hundred, but 3.75, 544, 21 million). This applies to ordinal numbers as well as cardinal numbers." There are some exceptions but they don't apply here. I've fixed the problem,[5] and added a note.[6] --AussieLegend (talk) 01:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your help, you explained it a lot better than I did as well. Jayy008 (talk) 14:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Guidelines

Is there nothing that describes sections? Jayy008 (talk) 19:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

What exactly are you referring to? --AussieLegend (talk) 19:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Your message on my talk-page describing the links of "Notability" etc as covering creation of an article or an article as a whole. Is there anything in general that says you shouldn't just list everything simply because it has a source? (International broadcast for TV). Jayy008 (talk) 19:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
There are guidelines and consensus as to what should generally be included but no policy preventing inclusion. MOS:TV doesn't say much at all. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. There was a mention of it on MOSTV, and I've been shown a few other things. Thanks for all the information on my talk-page too—it's always helpful! Jayy008 (talk) 19:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

A favor

Hello AussieLegend. A couple of weeks ago I had a dispute with Alec2011 (talk · contribs) about how the writers should listed in the List of Jessie episodes article he insists using line breaks. When I told him that were unnecessary and that ampersands are generally used in episodes lists now, he gave a ridiculous excuse that previous series that were produced by Pamela Eells O'Connell used this method?: [7]. He also said that OTHER Disney Channel use line breaks in their episode lists: [8]? I let him have his way, but I have to recant my stance due to the line breaks stretching the height of the writers column for episode 3: [9]. In my opinion, i'd rather have the writers column width stretched out than its height. He seems to be following your example about how you allowed line breaks in The Suite Life of Zack & Cody, The Suite Life on Deck and Hannah Montana episode lists. Since that is case, can you please give you two cents on this issue. QuasyBoy 13:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

There's no actual "standard" per se. We use whatever looks best for the article. I don't see any real issue with using line breaks in the article but we need to balance the layout. If that means a combination of ampersands and line breaks, that's what we should do. I think this is a better option, and it corrects a couple of things too. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I like your method a lot. Thank you. :) QuasyBoy 13:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
You're very welcome. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to add that it was really personal opinions that caused all of this when one liked one way and one liked the other. I like both the line breaks that AussieLegend used before and how he presented it on the page now. - Alec2011 (talk) 16:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

List of Charlie's Angels (2011 TV series) episodes ‎

Hi! Thanks for giving your opinion about the merger proposal of List of Charlie's Angels (2011 TV series) episodes. I've never done anything like that before so is it better someone else merges the whole content or can I do it? Are 2 opinions enough or should we wait for more? Sofffie7 (talk) 20:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC) ‎

The AfD result still stands so the episode list should never have been split out in the first place. With this in mind and as there has been no opposition to the merge proposal, I've merged the episode content back in. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Chansep2009

I have replied to your message on my talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Update: You can see the outcome of the investigation which I launched thanks to your tip off here. Clearly what you and I had seen was just the tip of the iceberg. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Wow, so many sleepers! --AussieLegend (talk) 18:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Infobox consensus

What consensus? Where? All I see are many show's pages that haven't used the website_title keyword. The few that have (Star Trek:<ALL>, Law & Order, Futurama and others) don't use bland generics. I copy/paste from the Infobox Televison documentation: "website_title The name of the official website. If omitted, the default title is "Website"." So, "NCIS at CBS.com" is the official name of the website and should be so in the Infobox as well. Cbbkr (talk) 21:40, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

"NCIS on CBS.com" (note "on", not "at") is just the title of that specific html page, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's the name of the website. "|website_title=" is an optional parameter that's not really needed at all. Most pages use "Website" or "Official website" if they use the parameter. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

"and" & ","

Just making sure about something. I was just going by the "opening credits" where it's "Michael Poryes and Rich Correll & Barry O'Brien" not "Michael Poryes, Rich Correll & Barry O'Brien." I know you use comma's in a list: Milk, Eggs, Cereal, and Toast; but I'm not sure for names. Are both correct? I assume so since it's used in the Opening Credits as "and, &" for 3 names. Because if you look here for the Lost pilot episodes, it's "Jeffrey Lieber and J. J. Abrams & Damon Lindelof" becuase it's names. I think you only use "," is in a list of three things, not names. - Alec2011 (talk) 17:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The content of the list doesn't matter, it's always a, b & c if you don't use a serial comma, or a, b, & c if you use a serial comma. The only difference is when people are teamed up. For example: "Yogi and Boo Boo, Minnie and Mickey, and Tom and Jerry attended the party." This can be mixed up if you have couples and singles. For example: "Yogi and Boo Boo, Tom and Jerry, Sylvester, Bugs, Batman, and The Incredible Hulk attended the wedding of Minnie and Mickey." It's often a mistake to use other articles as examples. I watched the first 15 minutes of the Lost pilot (credits don't start until 07:32) and the end credits, and Lieber, Abrams and Lindelof are not listed anywhere as "Jeffrey Lieber and J. J. Abrams & Damon Lindelof". This is obviously a mistake in simple English by whomever edited the article. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
The credits at the beginning (not the end credits) it states Written by: "Jeffrey Lieber and J. J. Abrams & Damon Lindelof" also on the HM Opening Credits (The Theme Song) it shows it as "Michael Poryes and Rich Correll & Barry O'Brien" as well as in the credits after the theme song it says "Teleplay by Michael Poryes and Gary Dontzig & Steven Peterman" not "Teleplay by Michael Poryes, Gary Dontziz & Steven Peterman."
Can you give me the time that this credit appears in the Lost pilot? In my copy, the credits start at 07:32 with "Starring: Naveen Andrews" and finish at 09:52 with the fade-out of "Director of Photography Larry Fong". I did find something similar to what you say in a later episode where it says:
Created by
Jeffrey Lieber and
J. J. Abrams & Damon Lindelof
Clearly, they're teaming Abrams & Lindelof, but this is still bad English, even by American standards. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:07, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

That's the part I meant. Just like the Hannah Montana Credits if you look at the first episode at around 3:53 it clearly states:
Story By
Michael Poryes
and
Rich Correll
&
Barry O'Brien
There's not comma between the names. - Alec2011 (talk) 22:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Fortunately we're not required to replicate poor English. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

James Gordon (comics)

You recently removed a citation because it was from an unreliable source. Unfortunately, you left the claim it made in place. In the future, if a reference is deemed unreliable, the entire assertion should be removed. 69.181.251.214 (talk) 20:34, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Unsourced claims may be removed, but it's not mandatory. Editors should be given a reasonable time to source claims. Adding {{citation needed}} is sometimes better than deleting the content outright. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Hour Episdoes?

I'd like to know why you don't let Disney Channel series have two episode number's for Hour-episodes but other series it happens. Yes, it's a one-hour episode but it's 2 episode filmed together into a one-hour slot. Because Comedy shows are half-hour shows, if the show has a special one-hour episode, it's 2 episodes filmed together made into an hour episode. iCarly for example the episode iFight Shelby Marx was aired as one continuous episode but it's really 2-episodes in one so it's really episdoe 49-50 or 24-25 in the season. Becuase these shows are not hour shows if it's an hour, it's 2 episodes produced together or if it's an hour and a half (iParty with Victorious) then it's 3 episodes produced together. Same goes with The Middle as the season 3 Premiere was marked as a special hour episode it's really the first 2 episodes produced into one episode. Why do you have something against it being done on Disney Channel shows? Yes it's marked as an hour episode but it's two episodes together (making season 4 15 episodes not 13). - Alec2011 (talk) 19:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

To my knowledge I've never edited either of those articles. However, the general rule is that if it's aired as a single episode, with a single set of credits, it's regarded to be a single episode and if reliable sources report it as being a single episode, as was the case with iFight Shelby Marx,[10] we have to treat it as such. To treat it as two episodes because we think it should be treated as two episodes despite what reliable sources say, is original research. I'm interested to know what Disney episode(s) you're talking about specifically. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Half hour shows are treated differently than Hour Shows. Usually hour shows don't need 2 episodes for one episode because it's an hour so they can fit more in an hour. Half hour shows are usually a half hour but when they have a special hour episode they use 2 episode and air them together (Note: on the HM Forever season 4 DVD the episode "I'll Always Remember You" says (Parts 1 & 2) on the DVD but is aired together as a full episode but it's really 2 episodes aired as a single episode).
I'm also talking about any Disney show that was an hour "Shake It Up, Up and a Way," Hannah Montana "He Could Be The One, I'll Always Remember You, Wherever I Go," Wizards of Waverly Place "Wizards vs. Werewolves, Wizards Unleashed, Wizards vs. Angels." Note that in that Press Release of the Total HM episodes was 101 (Remember that conversation here) they count it as individual half hour episodes total (which means that all hour episodes are 2 episodes together) Season 1 = 26, Season 2 = 30 (No Sugar, Sugar was produced as a S2 episode), Season 3 =31 (Uptight (Oliver's Alright) was produced with S3 as a S3 episode) Season 4 = 15 which all equals 101 as the reliable source stated). - Alec2011 (talk) 18:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
There is no policy, guideline or consensus that says half-hour shows are treated any differently to hour-long shows. There are many different episode lengths; 11, 22, 25, 40, 42, 43, 50 and 52 minute runtimes are just a few that I've seen lately. Because there is such a variation we work on episodes, not the runtimes of the episodes. Regarding Hannah Montana, if you remember, despite the press release stating there were 101 episodes, there are no other reliable sources that confirmed that number, which is why we ended up with 99 episodes including "No Sugar, Sugar". Your episode count is a little off, season 3 only has 30 episodes, not 31, including "Uptight (Oliver's Alright)". "He Could Be the One", despite having two production codes, is specifically referred to in Disney's press release as "a one-hour episode". Claiming that it's two episodes in light of that is WP:OR and not permitted. The same is true for both "I'll Always Remember You" and "Wherever I Go". That "I'll Always Remember You" might have been split up on the DVD is of little consequence. The episode lists here form part of the broadcast history and DVDs are not broadcast; they're a physical medium created after the broadcast and double-length episode are almost always split into two for convenience. DVDs also generally order episodes by production sequence, rather than aired sequence. Even though we include the DVDs in the episode lists, we don't go through articles after DVD release and re-order episodes according to the order on the DVDs. Instead we list the episodes by air date sequence. There are a couple of exceptions to this, but they're only exceptions. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

So basically I can do what QuasyBoy did an go through every episode page that has that and change the numbers around to only include 1 episode not 3 in the episode column? You don't seem to have this problem with any other page but the Disney Shows. Even if Disney says it's an "hour Special" "I'll Always Remember You" There was a director for Part 1 and a Director for Part 2 meaning it's 2 episodes put together to be aired as a one-hour special. I'll Always Remember You wasn't Split up on the DVD the title says "I'll Always Remember You (Parts 1 & 2) but when you play the episode it's not slit, it's aired as it is on TV. The DVD also has them listed in airing order on TV not Production order. - Alec2011 (talk) 22:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't watch every program, I don't even watch every Disney program. It's only programs that are aimed at kids that generally suffer this problem. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
I already showed you another program that does it The Middle. Also The Office does this as well for the episode Search Committee and other shows that are a Half Hour. Meaning for special hour episodes there are 2 episodes that count for that one episode. - Alec2011 (talk) 22:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't watch The Middle or The Office so I can't comment on those generally. However, the season 3 premiere of The Middle was aired as a single episode with a single set of credits and listed on reliable sources as a 2 part episode, not two separate episodes, so it probably should be listed as a single episode. Search Committee is listed in the same way so it probably should be listed as a single episode too. However, the press releases for those episodes do not specifically mention that they are a single episode, so whether or not they are listed as a single episode is really something that the editors of those articles need to agree upon. If reliable sources say that something is one episode we have to treat the episode as such but if they don't, then we have to make a decision based on consensus. We've discussed this previously, several times now. We have to follow reliable sources. We can't make decisions that are contradicted by reliable sources. That constitutes original research, which you know is not permitted. As I indicated above, there is no policy, guideline or consensus that says half-hour shows are treated any differently to hour-long shows. We treat each episode according to what reliable sources say, not our own opinions. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, however according to this reliable source, "I'll Always Remember You" and "Wherever I Go" are both listed as 2-Part episdoes with 2 prod. codes so these will need to be listed as 9-10 and 14-15 respectively. The source also states that there is a total of 100 episodes meaning the two 2-part episodes make it 100 not 98. I added the right reference as you stated for correct Prod. Codes but I can't change he Series Overview as its Protected so I can't change it from 13 to 15. - Alec2011 (talk) 16:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
You're delving into original research again by continuing to make the assumption that 2 parts or 2 production codes means two episodes. As you've pointed out "I'll Always Remember You" was a single episode even on the DVD and since it aired as a single episode with a single set of credits and since Disney says it's a single episode in its press release, it has to be listed as a single episode. Again, this is the same for "Wherever I Go". You really need to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia:No original research (especially WP:SYNTH) and Wikipedia:Verifiability. We've been discussing this since you first started editing Hannah Montana. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
2-Parts is 2 episodes. Part 1 & Part 2. There's a different director for each part of the episode for I'll Always Remember You. You order series by the number of episodes. Disney ordered 15 single half-hour episodes for season 4 (Hence why the Production Codes go from 401-415) If they want to put 2 episodes together into one continuous episode they put both parts together into a single episode but it's 2 episodes together. They're both the same episode so they would receive the same credits. - Alec2011 (talk) 18:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
As with the half-hour episode claim, there is no policy, guideline or consensus that says 2 parts automatically equals 2 episodes. Claiming that is original research. Disney says the eposides are one-hour episodes, not two one-hour episodes. You need to understand, you can't discount reliable sources to push your own point of view. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I understand. If I need anything, I'll let you know. :) - Alec2011 (talk) 18:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Jessie Episodes?

In this edit you say that episode 7 is not available so it's a placeholder when "Used Karma" is listed as episode 2 but on the list of episodes page it's listed as episode 3. There's something wrong there. - Alec2011 (talk) 16:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

You're correct, there is something wrong. "Used Karma" was definitely episode 3, and futon critic says it's ep3, prod code #102. Unfortunately Zap2it specifically identifies it as "S01, E02", which is an episode number, not a production code. However, futoncritic says that "Zuri's New Old Friend" is #107 and identifies it as episode 6, while Zap2it identifies it as "S01, E06". What Zap2it is doing is anyone's guess. It happens all too often, which is why I tend to shy away from zap2it when I can. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
So what now. Can we do anything about it? Just use Futon Critic? And say Zap2It is not reliable? I don't usually use it as well as the schedule usually changes. - Alec2011 (talk) 18:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I prefer to use futoncritic and msn as they're generally the most reliable. Sometimes it doesn't work and we have to use other sources as an interim measure. If zap2it, which seems inconsistent, is used as a source, I often replace the citation with one from futoncritic when it's available as futoncritic basically just reproduces the press realease, and that's usually the best source. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Other editors' talk pages

Other than placing comments or reverting due to vandalism, it's not acceptible behavior to alter another editor's talk page without having received permission to do so. Reading my previous comments and then adding new comments of your own would suffice - restoring all the comments deleted is not collegial and can be considered harassment. Please see WP:UP and WP:DRC for more information. Unless you have something positive and productive to say on my talk page in relation to an article (or articles), please stay off my talk page. You've worn out your welcome there. Lhb1239 (talk) 18:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you familiarise yourself with Wikipedia:User pages since you clearly do not understand the purpose of talkpages and apparently think that you own your talk page. You do not! Your actions in replying to comments I had made and then deleting the still open thread so that I couldn't reply is not civil. Since I was replying to your comments it was appropriateto restore the deleted content to provide appropriate conext, which I noted in the edit summary.[11] As I indicated in that post, you have been in conflict with numerous editors, and by numerous I don't mean just one or two, in the past weeks. There are threads at Talk:Pan Am (TV series)#Cast order, Talk:The Playboy Club# and WT:TV#What does "appeared" mean, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#Organizing cast members in a cast section to name a few as well as several edit wars in articles. You really do need to re-evaluate your approach to other editors, especially when they are trying to help you. Based on the disputes, you seem to have your own belief about how Wikipedia works which is not the way that Wikipedia actually works. You really do need to re-evaluate your approach to other editors, and start accpeting that some editors have more experience and/or different opinionions to you. You'll find it a lot easier to fit in. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Good Luck Charlie

Wiki's may not be the best resource, but the fact of the matter is the episode in question did air in Canada (to coincide with Canadian Thanksgiving) already. As you can see from this link. youtu.be/zfKDr7qr6iY. So we have proof of the episode, we also have the Canadian rating in the upper-left hand corner. Do we do this tug of war until the American premiere on November 20th?, because in reality this is going to be one where I will end up winning. Jrfoldes (talk) 21:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

To satisfy Wikipedia's verifiability policy you need to be able to verify that the episode has aired in Canada. That means a citation from a reliable source is needed. A WP:LINKVIO, such as the one you posted above, is not a reliable source. If you continue to post the same content over and over the only thing that you will win is some time away from editing Wikipedia. --AussieLegend (talk) 21:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Well despite the link I sent you earlier, and the Canadian fans who have seen it, would a press release work? It's mentioned on the last line of the third paragraph. http://www.astral.com/en/press-room/news/2011/shake-it-up-shimmies-onto-family-channel-for-season-two Jrfoldes (talk) 21:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
As I indicated, the link that you provided is a linkvio, and can't be used as a source. The press release doesn't mention the actual episode name, so it really is useless too. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:04, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Which brings up the next problem, there is proof this episode aired in Canada for Canadian Thanksgiving. I firmly believe you don't disagree with me on that issue, but Wiki policy says otherwise. The only other way I can think of is to go on Family.ca and you can view the episode yourself. The only problem is you have to have a Canadian IP and a proper Canadian carrier, and I'm guessing since you're from Australia (I'm going by your username) you won't be able to see it. So any solutions on your end? 24.68.10.48 (talk) 23:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
In circumstances such as this, it's usually best to wait until it's scheduled in the US. It's strange that this episode hasn't been scheduled as episodes before and after thanksgiving have been. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Well like I said this aired to coincide with Canadian Thanksgiving, which is always the second Monday in October (it always drives the Americans crazy when they can't figure out why Thanksgiving is trending on Twitter a month early). Yes I do agree that it is unusual for something like this to happen, but it looks like the Disney Channel gave the okay to air it early in Canada. I watched, my friends watched it, there is a badly uploaded copy on YouTube (with the Canadian Rating stamp in the upper left hand corner), and we have a press release which does allude to the episode. The episode does indeed exist there is no disputing it, so here's what I propose... When the episode does indeed air -- or we have sufficient evidence for Wikipedia -- we can post the episode as per the norm, but with some note (like what I did initially) stating that it premiered a month early in Canada? Is that okay, or again I'm open to suggestions. 24.68.10.48 (talk) 02:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

2-Part-episodes

Is there a way to identify episodes so they really belong together? So, two episodes that no "part" in the title. -- 91.64.231.120 (talk) 16:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The consensus seems to be not to identify them as such in the title unless the official title includes parts. If necessary, it may be mentioned in the episode summary. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
OK, and the option "RTitle"? Can not we use them? -- 91.64.231.120 (talk) 17:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

RfC at Hart of Dixie

There is a current RfC at the Hart of Dixie talk page. You are being notified and asked to participate because you have recently edited the article. Lhb1239 (talk) 20:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

My mistake...

...I simply had the wrong table in mind.

That would have been quick to sort out if you would have assumed good faith. So, stop following me around, and calm down and think before you revert my edits again. I'm aware that it is de facto legal to WP:HARASS IPs, that does not mean however that Wikipedia would profit from it. --91.10.43.148 (talk) 14:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

You inexplicably removed content and moved a template with no reason.[12] I asumed good faith when I reverted that.[13] I still assumed good faith when you posted an uncivil edit summary after reverting that,[14] when I explained further as to why the template was where it was and why the comment existed,[15] before asking you not to be so uncivil and to discuss the matter,[16] which you made no attempt to do. Despite that, you continued your disruptive editing and ramped up the attacks,[17] which have not yet ceased.[18][19] It's not harassment to check the edits of an IP who is being abusive, uncivil, editing disruptively and introducing original research into articles. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
For future reference: Admitting an error is "ramping up the attacks". --91.10.43.148 (talk) 20:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
No, but "Stop mindlessly following oders and think for yourself for a second", "your animosity should not cloud your judgement", and "That would have been quick to sort out if you would have assumed good faith. So, stop following me around, and calm down and think before you revert my edits again" is. If you're going to admit you're wrong, admit it, but don't then attack the person you're allegedly apologising to. --AussieLegend (talk) 20:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

HMAS Stuart (FFH 153)

In answer to your question, my only answers are for consistency in appearance (all short form cites appear similarly in the citations list) and formatting (with the added benefit of minimising the complex wikimarkup within the body of the article, where less experienced users may be playing), and to comply with what appears to be an accepted referencing standard in several FA, GA, and A class articles I've worked on. -- saberwyn 08:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

It's an incredibly confusing way to reference though, making it hard for the average reader to follow and verify references. With standard referencing, clicking on the number in breckets takes you directly to the actual reference. With the method being used in these articles, you've then got to hunt around the page for the relevant text. There are neater methods - The original method is one of them. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
But instead of using 'standard' referencing, you've introduced additional templates and coding into the text of the article (potentialy further confusing novice contributors), and for half the sources (the books), the random reader still needs to go hunting for the full ref (either by cliking on the link, or scrolling down after failing to understand that clicking on the blue article link will not take them to an article on the highlighted subject). However, its just two different but acceptable ways of providing the same information: I don't have to like it, I don't have to use it, but I'm not going to revert or change away from it without good reason. -- saberwyn 11:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
The extra coding is simply the use of {{harvnb}}, which is a standard template. I could have made the code really "simple" and used {{harvnb}} each time a book reference was used, but this would have made the reference list messy so, to avoid that I set up 10 reusable references instead of 34 individual entries using the functionality of {{reflist}}, which seems far more logical. "Hunting" for refs is easier now because readers can click on a link to take them directly to the book references, which they couldn't do before. They had to scroll down and search for the reference. That's acceptable in a book but readers shouldn't have to do it on websites. Standard reference templates like {{cite news}}, {{cite web}}, {{cite book}} and {{cite journal}} do this by default so I don't see the issue there. The desire to link is one of the reasons we discourage use of "Ibid" and similar terms on Wikipedia. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

persinent vandel

cheers for the heads up ive not reverted everything he has done as it was debateable if it was vandelism opr a valid contrubtion but it good to know that there mandate on it so to say--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 08:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

New to Wikipedia

Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia and haven't created any articles until yesterday. It was a try to see what would happen, and how the reaction would be. I'm a bit confused about the reason for the deletion, and had hoped someone would try to fix instead of delete the work I stared. If you could tell me what was wrong, or how to do it the "right" way, I would appreciate it. perolavbr (talk) 09:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

articles are generayl speedly deleted for either copyright violatiopn or sometihng that is consider vandelism ill try checkign the page you created see if i can see why--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 10:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
it wasnt delted it was redirected to the main article page, very few epsiode articles ever stay ther enormal redirect because they fail notablilty--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 10:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
The problem with the article is that it failed to pass the general notability guideline. Wikipedia requires that the subject of an article must be notable and articles need to establish that notability. The article didn't come close to doing that. It needed citations from reliable secondary sources, but the only references were to to episode itself, which are primary sources. Another problem is that the article was essentially just a summary of the plot, which made the article fail WP:PLOT. Most TV episodes are not deserving of an article because they just aren't notable and this was no different. it's a mistake that a lot of editors make, so don't be disheartened. I do have to commend you on the three references that you added. Very few people ever think to reference specific parts of the episode, making verification of claims difficult. Not so with the references you included. It was refreshing to see times within the episode mentioned. Sadly though, that wasn't enough to justify retention of the article. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanations, both of you. I'm trying to learn to take part of Wikipedia, but have not quite understood the concept I guess. If it's required to have external references, I could add some, and trying to expand the article to more than just the plot. perolavbr (talk) 20:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Demographics of Australia

Thanks, I fixed my error in Energy in Australia. I feel embarrassed of my error, but glad for your help in the discussion Talk:Demographics of Australia. I understood the numbers did not fit. But in my opinion the population growth in Australia is high with correct numbers as well. I am concerned of the World population growth, since we hit the 7 billion people in October 2011. It seems for me that the governments do not recognize the problem. It would be easier now than in 2030.40. You may have interest in: Template:World population 1990-2025. I continue the discussion on the main page. Watti Renew (talk) 14:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Pan Am

It is no use, because this guy is a victim of WP:IDHT. Elizium23 (talk) 19:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I am also finding WP:LASTWORD edifying here. Elizium23 (talk) 06:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
This is an Austriallan Wikipediar! Dr. Comentary 21:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Kal Parekh

I don't want to be officially seen as edit-warring the article, so as the person who first placed the {{Cn}} tag on the "moved to the U.S. in 1980" statement I'm asking you to self-revert your re-adding of the tag after it was removed. Under the circumstances of insertion timing and distance between assertion and citation, I feel the original placement was justified, but I probably could have done a little more due diligence first. The Asian Weekly article (if it's a RS, but that's another issue) clearly supports the added statement, and I generally oppose cluttering up articles by including multiple citations to the same reference within a single paragraph unless a direct quote is involved. Thanks for your consideration. Fat&Happy (talk) 23:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

And I'm also asking you to self-revert your unneeded placement of the tag. In an effort to not clutter the article up with repeated and redundant referencing (see WP:CITE for more guidance on the subject), placing yet another of the same is ridiculous. Especially since the reference works for nearly the entire paragraph. Not reverting the placement within a reasonable period of time (i.e., if you're editing other articles and have already read this but don't take the time to revert the cn tag), not removing the tag can only be seen as disruptive editing/non-editing and will be dealt with appropriately. Lhb1239 (talk) 00:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I didn't restore the {{cn}} tag, I referenced the claim, as the edit history shows, and which should be obvious as [1] and not [citation needed] follows the text.[20] Wikipedia:Verifiability requires that "anything "challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material." Clearly this is a claim that is likely to be challenged, since it was actually challenged, so referencing it is a good idea. There's absolutely no reason to remove such a reference, especially in BLPs. Lhb1239's suggestion about "repeated and redundant referencing" is quite silly given that the particular reference was already used twice in the paragraph before I referenced the first statement. I'd also point out that I don't particularly appreciate the threat made in his final sentence, ie "not removing the tag can only be seen as disruptive editing/non-editing and will be dealt with appropriately." --AussieLegend (talk) 00:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for the misunderstanding; I was in the middle of a series of spam reversions when I saw the edit summary on my watchlist, and influenced by that must have just barely glanced at the popups version of your actual edit. I still wonder, though, whether given the content of the paragraph and the reference, the end of the sentence might be a sufficient – and better in the long run – placement of the cite. The late addition of the move content into an existing paragraph with no new reference possibly unduly influenced my originally questioning it, but for a reader new to the article, the year is no more likely to be challenged than the birth location, the fact of the move itself, or the place of eventual residence – all of which are covered fairly close together in the reference (IIRC). Fat&Happy (talk) 01:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Dates alignment

I saw the conversation here. Don't hesitate to let me know if there are articles whose dates you wish to align to a given format. Alternatively, I would invite you to test drive the script I wrote for the purpose which can harmonise same, at the click of a mouse. Cheers, --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 07:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I've been meaning to try out the script, so thanks for pointing me to it. Thanks also for finding that discussion. I wanted to refer to it a couple of weeks ago and couldn't find it anywhere. --08:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Page for Sydney

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.
Discussion moved to Talk:Sydney#Historical population --AussieLegend (talk) 08:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I notice you changed the figure for historical populations of sydney, the figure you put down was not the correct figure. The figure you used was for the Sydney urban area, not the Sydney statistical division (which is the usual quoted figure, and the figures used for other data in this table). The figure I had put down was NOT an estimate, if you looked at the source, it said it was OBSERVED, not an estimate. In the future try to think about it before canging it: According to the figure you used, Sydney grew by ~50 000 in 6 years from 2000 to 2006, but then by 300 000 in 2 years from 2006 to 2008, this is extremely unlikely. I can assure you that the figure I had used was the appropriate one for this table. Nuiop729 (talk) 06:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

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.

(Revert or remove if you wish)

Hello, AussieLegend. You have new messages at George Ho's talk page.
Message added 21:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A note of appreciation....

The short note you dropped off is very much appreciated.Television fan (talk) 13:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Broadcast Media

I apologize for footnoting Bridgit Mendler's appearance incorrectly. I'm sure I spent at least three hours trying to figure out how to do it right. The note on the Talk Page demanded a reference but the usual references (the Futon Critic, TV Guide, MSN TV, and Disney Channel press release) all omitted her appearance. Of course, half of them omitted the primary guest star, John Rubenstein, as well. I could not figure out how to reference it, although I was 100% positive that she appeared and credited since I personally viewed the episode four times in two days. (Disney Channel reruns their shows frequently and my television is set on Disney Channel at least 12-14 hours per day.) My Turabian and MLA style sheets do not include radio and television broadcasts, although they used to do so. I know that they are not exactly the same as Wikipedia style, but on odd duck items I consult them in order to not leave out any information and then adjust them to Wikipedia style. And would a broadcast citation be sufficient anyway?

"Wizards vs. Everything." Wizards of Waverly Place. Disney Channel. Burbank, CA, October 28, 2011.

Today I found the Chicago Manual of Style format for broadcast citations and I am guessing that this is what I should have used. Am I correct? I am not going to do anything with it now—I mostly only correct grammatically poorly written sections anymore—but it would be good to know for future use. Any information you might have would be appreciated.

I run into this kind of situation with broadcast and print media when writing online citations sometimes. And what does one do about media that was online and has now disappeared, but of which I made a copy when it was online and now I need to use? On the flip side, I have the same kind of problem citing online media when writing graduate school papers. Jared82ca (talk) 10:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Bay FM 99.3

Should I restore all the comments by the IP? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

No, the previous comments were all appropriately removed. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
They were all from 165...164. How do you distinguish one comment from another? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
It's a good faith assumption that the IP we are seeing now is the actual station owner and not the person who claimed to be the owner. Part of this is admittedly OR. I had a telephone call from another community radio station in the area yesterday. They said that they had been having similar, but not quite so bad, problems with their computers. I suspect that the same person may have been attacking both. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
OK, well, since you are focused more on that article than I am, I'll let your judgment prevail. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Request an opinion

There is an edit conflict being discussed at Talk:List of Austin & Ally episodes. I don't know whether or not you watch this show but would appreciate any thoughts you might have as an experienced TV show article editor. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Need Opinion

Your Opinion is needed on my Talk page to clear up some info. - Alec2011 (talk) 01:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The Episode Pages You Were Talking About

I am confused at to what I have done wrong. Do you think that you could tell me what I did wrong so that if I try and do that again, I know what to do and know now what to do. Thanks, - Jerems45 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerems45 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 9 December 2011‎ (UTC)

There were so many errors that it's hard to list them all, given that I had to make 2 dozen edits to fix your errors and other editors made many more. A few:
  • Incorrectly capitalising "season" as "Season" in article names, for example at Castle (Season 2). You seem to have fixed this with some other articles.
  • Failing to transclude articles - Don't simply remove episode summaries as you did at List of Castle episodes.[21] Sublists should be transcluded, as per the instructions at Template:Episode List#Sublists. When you created Castle (Season 2) you just duplicated what was already in List of Castle episodes, which was going to result in duplication errors at some point. Transclusion prevents that. You need to add additional code to the season and "List of" articles, as well as removing content from the "List of" article.[22][23]
  • Splits need attribution included on the article talk pages, as per WP:SPLIT. Attribution is added using {{Split to}} and {{Split from}}
  • Don't split articles too early. Splitting episode lists is normally reserved for articles with several seasons, and certainly not for series like Ringer (TV series), which are still airing their first season. Articles should be split when they are too large to handle, something that's addressed in WP:SPLIT and WP:ARTICLESIZE. If you can't add content that expands upon what's in the main "List of" article then splitting achieves nothing more than making it harder for the reader to find information that they want. Simply adding cast information that is already in another article is not expansion.
  • Articles need to meet minimum standards. Looking at this version of Castle (Season 2):
  1. there is no LEDE,
  2. the link to ABC is wrong
  3. the cast information is excessive. In a season article it only needs a brief explanation, maybe even just a list,
  4. "Main cast" and "Recurring characters" are improperly capitalised,
  5. "Season synopsis" and "Production" are empty sections. Empty sections should not be included.
  6. The article is not a member of any categories
  7. The infobox appears to have been copied and pasted from somewhere else. This is always problematic as there is no guarantee that other editors have copied the template correctly. This is the case here. You should always use a fresh copy, in this case from {{Infobox television season}}
As I said, these are just a few of the errors that I noticed. If you can't even sign your posts correctly after 3 attempts,[24] you should probably stay away from very complex tasks until you have considerably more experience. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Australia

What exactly did I do wrong with Australia? All I did was remove that ridiculous note that said Australia also had a royal anthem (God Save the Queen) and added the royal anthem part to the infobox. I fail to see how this is in any way disruptive. Problem? ~ Ashtonbltr (talk) 20:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

This wasn't the first time that you had removed the note,[25] and you were warned then.[26] Despite that, when you again removed the note only a week later, you did not provide an edit summary explaining your actions, making your actions look to be disruptive. There is consensus at Australia not to include the royal anthem in the infobox. Had you bothered to ask on the talk page, instead of making the same edit that had previously been reverted, you would have known that. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Dispute resolution noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "24 articles infobox images". Thank you. --Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 23:55, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Pilot (The Playboy Club) GA

Great work on taking "Pilot (The Playboy Club)" to WP:GA level. It seems to me that since there were only 3 episodes aired, it wouldn't be too big a leap to try the same thing for The Playboy Club. Just a suggestion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

List of That Girl episodes

Ahh, so you decided to make a List of That Girl episodes on your own. And you copied some of my work too, with the exception of my series/season number errors. Hey, as long as it's there. ----DanTD (talk) 14:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmmmm. This is peculiar. I left a response at WT:TV, or at least I thought I did, telling you this but it's not there. Maybe I didn't click "Save page". Oh well, at least you found it. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
No, you didn't leave a response, but you did help me with my own version of the list, and I'm thankful for that. I'm not ready to delete the version in my sandbox just yet, but the deletion is inevitable. Sorry if I woke you up for this(although I can't imagine how). Just out of curiosity, why are some episodes shaded in gray? ----DanTD (talk) 15:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
The episodes that are grey are those that have episode summaries. It's a function of {{Episode list}}. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
It looks kinf of inconsistent, but okay. Just out of curiosity, what do you want to do about the two versions of "What's In a Name?" ----DanTD (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
The alternative is to unhide the "|ShortSummary=" fields,which will make all episode header rows grey, but that will add 122 blank lines to the article, which looks messy. I've commented the pilot out because the only source I've found is imdb, which is not reliable. Reliable sources don't seem to mention it. Most TV programs don'tlist the unaired pilots, but if we can find reliable sources that support it, there's nothing stopping it being included. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, IMDb doesn't mention the date of the pilot version of "What's in a Name." It is one of the bonus features on the Season One DVD, and a screen grab of the closing titles would support that, but that would be a copyright violation. Aside from exposing the pilot as part of the list, the only thing I can imagine is writing a decent version of the plot summary for the revised version, and mentioning the differences in the pilot as a note. ----DanTD (talk) 16:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I had to revert your edit to one episode title, because despite what MSN and TVGuide claim the episode title is, the DVD states that the title of the episode as "Thanksgiving Comes But Once a Year, Hopefully". Meanwhile I should start working on more plot summaries for the other episodes. ----DanTD (talk) 21:22, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Since we have two verifiable reliable sources that say "Thankfully", we're going to need a citation for "Hopefully". --AussieLegend (talk) 04:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
So, what do you want me to do? Make a photocopy from the DVD cover and post it on ImageShack? ----DanTD (talk) 07:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I'd like you to know that both MSN and TVGuide have made mistakes too. When it comes to anything in the creative arts, the actual work and artists are the best source. ----DanTD (talk)
Everyone makes mistakes, but we can't resort to OR to determine which is wrong and which is right. I have doubts about DVDs made 35-40 years after the original works were created and it's unlikely that TVGUide and MSN have made the same mistake. Our best practice is to note both the aired name and the name on the DVD. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Reply

I just hope you warned User:Bidgee too. He indeed breached WP:3RR and he's getting slack? I also replied on Talk:Russell Crowe. RAP (talk) 15:06 21 December 2011 (UTC)

According to the edit history, Bidgee did not breach 3RR, as I explained on your talk page. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Lake Macquarie suburbs question

After noticing an inconsistency in whether Lake Macquarie suburbs claimed to be in Lake Macquarie or Newcastle, I had been editing them to be more consistent (and chose Lake Macquarie as the obvious more accurate choice). Up until I came across an old hidden comment inside one suburb saying to stop changing it to say Lake Macquarie, which led me to several archived talk pages including yours, mostly concerning population counts.

Are you aware of any consensus on this issue? It seems to me that, for the purposes of suburb articles, unless you are calling most of the Hunter a suburb of newcastle you need to draw a line somewhere, and the LGA boundaries are the only real place to do it which wouldn't be personal opinion. And the fact that Newcastle is still given as the nearby CBD should make things clear. --Qetuth (talk) 08:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

There is a rather peculiar belief here that ABS SDs define city boundaries, which they do not. This is why Sydney extends from the southern part of Lake Macquarie down to past Wollongong, when Sydney obviously does not. When I first started editing here Newcastle, New South Wales covered all of the local LGAs and suburbs listed at List of suburbs in Greater Newcastle, New South Wales. After some discussion, a bit of common sense prevailed, but only a bit, as it was decided that Newcastle included everything in the Newcastle UCL. This includes a fair part of Lake Macquarie, Fern Bay (which is part of Port Stephens) but not Beresfield, Tarro or most of Hexham.[27] I've tried using the LGA boundary argument, as that is the official definition of a city boundary in NSW (with Greater Sydney being a special addition) but there is a perception that LGAs that aren't on the NSW Geographical Names Register can't be "real" cities, especially if they were declared to be cities after 1993, when the Local Government Act 1993 was enacted. This is the problem that confronts Lake Macquarie; despite being larger in area and greater in population than Newcastle, and having become a city before the Local Government Act 1993, it's not considered to be a real city. You can see how I was shouted down at Talk:Charlestown, New South Wales about this. I haven't seen the "original discussion" where it was decided that LGAs are not cities, but I disagree with it. LGA bounderies are official and verifiable and that's what we should use in NSW. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, that...isn't really all that helpful, is it? I guess I'll leave it alone for now and not stir up trouble. I notice if I'm reading it right that map seems to include Toronto but not several suburbs which would consider Toronto their local town center (eg Rathmines). Anyway, agreed completely we should be using an official and verifiable source and thanks for the explanation. --Qetuth (talk) 10:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

3RR doesn't apply.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Removing a personal attack (one calling me a racist) isn't a 3RR issue. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Removing personal attacks is not one of the 3RR exemptions and edit-warring is unacceptable anywhere. There are other actions you could take, such as raising the matter at WP:AN/I. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
  • No editor should have to tolerate being called a racist when they haven't said a single word about race. It is vile and not only should I not tolerate it, you shouldn't tolerate it being done. WQA is a giant waste of time, so why bother with it. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
  • 3RR doesn't apply to libelous material about a living person. Calling me a racist is libelous and I am a living person. BLP doesn't apply only to subjects of articles and it applies to ANY Wikipedia page, including talk pages.Niteshift36 (talk) 03:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
WP:3RRNO says "Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP)." WP:BLP doesn't apply to Wikipedia editors, unless they have an article on Wikipedia. 3RRNO further states, "What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." It also says "If you are claiming an exemption, make sure there is a clearly visible edit summary or separate section of the talk page that explains the exemption." No such edit summary exists. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
  • WP:BLPTALK says "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, and categories". I am a living person. Further, it says "Although this policy applies to posts about Wikipedians in project space...." and that is me as well. The edit summary is clear that I am objecting to the term racism being applied to me because it is an attack, as well as the fact that it has been explained on the other editors talk page. Again, you should be opposing the mis-use of the term "racism" and a particularly vile and repugnant allegation being made falsely. That is FAR more important than debating interpretations of 3RR. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
If you were really that concerned about it, you could have raised the problem at AN/I by now, rather than trying to justify a policy that doesn't apply to you. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I haven't seen a need to escalate it yet. I even told the editor a more correct term that would say what he is actually trying to say. I'm not justifying anything. While you feel it doesn't apply, you are not the arbitor of what does and doesn't apply. You are another opinion, just like me. So please, let's not pretend otherwise. I appreciate your concern, but I believe it is misplaced. The last word is yours. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Nightshift36, I have explained why racism is the correct term. As per the UN definition, racism includes discrimination based on nationality (i.e. country of origin). I have also explained why cultural bias has nothing to do with it.
Additionally, I am commenting on the content, specifically the idea that we need to use US sources over other sources being racist, as per the UN definition. It is not calling you a racist, just what the content of your comment was. This means it isn't a personal attack. You are also fine with me describing racism, just as long as I don't use the word racism. What you are doing constitutes vandalism ("Illegitimately deleting or editing other users' comments").Black.jeff (talk) 19:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Also, I was attempting to remove the vandelism that Nightshift36 was doing, by Illegitimately deleting my comments. I had put that it was violating WP:TPO, but have now put an additional explanation and a claim for exemption. I will try and ensure I have them there in the future if I make multiple reverts, which hopefully wont be happening again.Black.jeff (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
  • You're so full of shit Jeff. You already admitted that the term racism wasn't correct.[28]. You said "I know that technically it isn't racism". Trying to backtrack now because you found some poorly written definition from a UN project doesn't change that. You know this has nothing to do with RACE. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
  • No I am not. I made a mistake, and thought that racism only applied to race, however I also knew of discrimination very similar to that based on race, where someone discriminates based on nationality. When you suggested a completely incorrect word, I looked up the actual definition of racism, which includes nationality as well as race. Why do you say that the UN has poorly written definitions? Just because you don't agree with it? Yes I know it has nothing to do with race, however I now also know that racism includes more than just race. I also know it has absolutely nothing to do with cultural bias.Black.jeff (talk) 18:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
The point that I raised on the page still remains; calling someone's comments idiocy is effectively calling them an idiot, which constitutes a personal attack. Removing personal attacks is not considered to be vandalism. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
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.

Here we go again!

I hope you had a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Just get back after 8 days away to only find that the roads people are back at it again, they have started a deletion discussion without notifing the Australian project. Bidgee (talk) 03:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Yep, they are at it again... This time Sandover Highway (and others) has the IR template which show how much it fails. I've undone the changes since there was no dicussion and the fact that the other dicussion has hit an all time low show that they will do anything. Template:Infobox Outback Track didn't even get any discussion and has been tagged for speedy deletion (they didn't even notify the creator). Bidgee (talk) 16:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Typical. Imust wonder though, is there a reason why we can't use IAR instead of {{Infobox Outback Track}}. It does seem a bit silly having a separate infobox for 11 roads. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

"Allocation" term in Roads Infobox

Could I just ask you a question about the term "Allocation" in the {{Infobox Australian road}} template.

I was thinking that it would be useful to link the term to some sort of definition which describes what the term means, similar in a way to how Primary destinations is linked in the UK infoboxes (see M1 motorway for an example). The only thing is I haven't been able to find anything about it in any of the articles. I had hoped that there might have been something in Road transport in Australia but didn't spot anything. Could you point me in the right direction if possible. Thanks. -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Allocation just refers to the route numbers allocated to that road. Unfortunately, I can't seem to find anything that provides a suitable definition. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
This document may be of some help. http://www.ozroads.com.au/QLD/classifications.htm Downsize43 (talk) 23:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello, AussieLegend. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

– Confession0791 talk 16:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Editing on Warehouse 13 seasons pages

Hi. I'm currently updating some info about this show since I'm watching the episodes these days. I noticed you're correcting some uncleaned stuff I'm doing, and I'm glad about it, I know you're an experienced user (I've read your posts on several discussion pages). I have to object only about the reverted capitalizing of the names of the artifacts, since in-universe they're considered proper nouns. Like, "Marilyn Monroe's brush" is just a brush owned by Marilyn Monroe; "Marilyn Monroe's Brush" is the unique artifact bearing this name. Since we're mentioning the artifacts (btw, that wasn't my idea, I'm just completing and polishing some work that was left unfinished by someone else), it makes sense that they're mentioned in the proper way.

Also, what's the policy about linking words? Like, is it not useful to link an uncommon word like "driftwood" to its page, for the sake of the readers who might not know what a driftwood is? (If that's not the case, maybe I/we should take out the links to other words too, like "croquet").

Finally, I'm not really giving any thought to the episode summaries, but some of them look weird. Are they all from the official network website? There's sure some added text at the bottom of the summary for the last episode of Season 3, that looks both irrelevant and original research, I'll take that out at some point (unless you want to do it yourself). Kumagoro-42 19:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia discourages in-universe references; you can read more at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction. Unless there's a real-world object called "Marilyn Monroe's Hairbrush" it should be referred to for exactly what it is in the real world, which is simply "Marilyn Monroe's hairbrush". The general policy on linking is to follow the Manual of Style. Avoid linking plain English words, common words etc., and only link when necessary. As for episode summaries, we don't copy from websites, as there are copyright issues. Summaries are best written in your own words but some editors don't do a very good job at all. --AussieLegend (talk) 20:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but this is not a case of writing an article in-universe, this is referencing an element of the plot within the episode summaries. When you talk about the Matrix in the plot section of The Matrix you use the capital word, Matrix, because that's a proper noun in the context of the movie. This is the same case: these mentioned objects are different from their common counterparts, which still exist (and are sometimes referenced) in the context of the show. It's a matter of semantics here. Within the context of the plot discussion, you can say that the Matrix is a matrix, as much as you can say that Marilyn Monroe's Brush is a brush. We're not describing the objects here, we're just mentioning them as they are mentioned in the show, just like we mention the character names, the fictional places, etc. (ETA: And some of them aren't even objects in reality, like something being a "lost folio" means nothing, it's clearly a proper noun. Others reference myths and urban myths existing in reality, and as such they are proper nouns too)
I'll try to rewrite some of the summaries then (I thought that was considered original research, shouldn't I at least cite the official website summaries as sources?). I'm pretty sure some of them come from TV guides, anyway, I can recognize the style of the teasing, the rhetorical questions, the reveal of some elements while concealing others.
Another thing: Episode 11 and Episode 12 of Season 3 ("Emily Lake" and "Stand") don't have "Part 1" and "Part 2" in their title, as per the official website (http://www.syfy.com/warehouse13/episodes/season/3/episode/311/emily_lake_stand). Correct me if I'm wrong, but "Part 1" and "Part 2" should be and are used for two-part episodes with the same title. I think we should use the titles provided by the official source, without any addition. Kumagoro-42 20:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Regardless of whether it's an entire article, or an element of the plot, we don't write in-universe. The Matrix is different, since it's the major plot element, as well as the title, while the individual objects in Warehouse 13 episodes are not. That said, if you can cite the capitalisation with secondary sources, then there may be a case for the non-standard capitalisation. Regarding Emily Lake and Stand, you'll notice that they're listed as "Title" (Part x). The actual episode title is bolded and inside inverted commas while "(Part x)" is not, indicating that it's not part of the title. There is no convention regarding this, or the use of "Part x". It's left up to editors of the articles. And no, I wasn't the editor who added them.[29] --AussieLegend (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok, last reply about this topic, then I'll stop wasting your time. I feel like the in-universe issue is misleading here, and I regret having used such an expression to begin with. What I want to stress is that the "Artifact(s)" section of the summaries is meant as a list of the relevant artifacts in each episode; in this sense, it's similar to a list of characters. The proper names of the artifacts are the ones with capital letters (as per screenshots where they are presented this way = official source), and since there are no real-life counterparts of these things, it's futile to spell them in another way as the given one. There's no such thing as a "lost folio" in real life (the adjective itself conveys a mythical property which is part of a proper noun). On the other hand, we have the Joshua's Trumpet which is a mythical object referred to in real life too (as would be the Ark of Covenant or the Holy Grail from Indiana Jones, where "ark", "covenant" and "grail" are common words used within the proper noun of an object); all these objects are either real or fictional versions of objects with proper nouns. It's inherently wrong to list something with a proper noun in lower-case, and a mess to treat them differently whether they are real or not, since establishing that is not the point of the section.
So, my view is: either we write them as they are meant to be (i.e. with capital letters), or we take them out entirely, since the way they are now it's similar to a wrongly spelled quote. A third option is to replace the "Artifact(s)" section with a "Reference to Real Life Events and People" (or something on those lines), where we list only the linked names of the real life famous people/places/etc. mentioned in the episode (e.g. Robert Louis Stevenson, Mata Hari), since I believe the artifact section itself was meant to give the reader an idea of the show's cultural references to begin with, and this goal would accomplished even better this way.
About the Part 1/Part 2 issue, it's still something for which there are no sources; it's entirely arbitrary to mark those episodes as "Part 1" and "Part 2" (if anything, so far the official source treats them as a single, double-length episode named Emily Lake/Stand, even if they will probably end up being split for the DVD release). Lots of shows have episodes telling a story ending with a cliffhanger and followed by an episode where the story is finished. Should we put a Part 1 and Part 2 label every single time this happens?
I see someone in the last few days has taken out the labels again, then someone else has undone the change. I'll let this as it is for now, but maybe I should start a discussion on the page. Thank you for your time! Kumagoro-42 16:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumagoro-42 (talk • contribs)
EDITED TO ADD: there's a fourth option to list the artifacts: not list them as proper nouns but as a description of what they are. Like, not "Black Bart's Cannon" (proper noun), but "a cannon from Black Bart's ship". I still the prefer the first version (proper nounds in capital letter) for the reasons explained above, but up to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumagoro-42 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Wizards/A&A Episode Name?

I did the same thing as what happened on the Austin & Ally page with the "Family Wizard" and "Who Will Be The Family Wizard." On the new Press Release it only states "Who Will Be The Family Wizard" here. Should only 1 title be there or still both titles? Same goes with the Austin & Ally episode title, there the title "Zaliens & Cloud Watchers" in the Press Release. - Alec2011 (talk) 19:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It's fairly clear from the Disney press releases that the episode titles are "Who Will Be The Family Wizard" and "Zaliens & Cloud Watchers". Futocritic, which is generally very reliable, supports this.[30][31] MSN is usually reliable, but I don't know how they got "Family Wizard". TVGuide is reliable but does make a lot of mistakes; we've had quite an issue with it at The Penguins of Madagascar, and I've seen this at other programs too. If "Family Wizard" and "Zaliens & Sharkodiles" have only appeared at one site (each) they could probably be removed, and we could just leave the Disney press releases in the "|RTitle=" fields to prove the title, as we did at "Hannah Montana". --AussieLegend (talk) 09:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree as well. It seems as though Disney finally made up it's mind on the episode title. So I can go ahead and use it as a reference then? - Alec2011 (talk) 18:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Go ahead. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AussieLegend/Archive_10&oldid=1143711849"