Jump to content

Talk:Full Measure (Breaking Bad)

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

File:Fullmeasure.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

[edit]

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

What should I do?

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

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

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

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

Requested move 29 December 2015

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

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

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Spshu (talk) 18:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Dicklyon that's redirecting here anyway, there's only one discussion. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see; that's weird. Can't we fix things back so that the proposed renaming is more clear? Currently the proposed move is to where we already are. Dicklyon (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My, what a massive pile-up we have here

[edit]

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

So...

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

Requested move 5 January 2016

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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


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

DIFFCAPS does not really recommend that degree of ambiguity; quite the contrary, as I read it. Dicklyon (talk) 01:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A hatnote is just one of Wikipedia's Half Measures. Full measure (disambiguation) is a Full Measure. ;) Wbm1058 (talk) 02:09, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"The general approach is that whatever readers might type in the search box, they are guided as swiftly as possible to the topic they might reasonably be expected to be looking for..." So seeing the helpful qualifier (Breaking Bad) pop up as a suggestion in the search box will surely swiftly guide readers to their desired destination. Wbm1058 (talk) 02:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Full_Measure_(Breaking_Bad)&oldid=1202169310"