User talk:Baa/Archival Quality/June 2009

This page is a chronological archive of past discussions from the current talk page for the period June 2009.

In order to preserve the record of past discussions, the contents of this page should be preserved in their current form. Please do NOT make new edits to this page. If you wish to make new comments or re-open an old discussion thread, please do so on the current talk page.

If necessary, copy the relevant discussion thread to the current talk page page and then add your comments there or preferably link to the section in question within the archives.

…To make room for the tuna!

Well, I'm cutting down on my wikistress by deciding to focus on one article at a time, and only make minor cleanup edits to others. I've got an article on some band you've never heard of and probably wouldn't listen to because they're country to just this side of GA, so now I need something else, and by gum, I'm going to go for the big one. Do you have any suggestions for other editors who are good at sniffing out sources, or wringing more information out of a good source than I can? I'm not sure if it would even have enough potential for GA, but at the very least it'd be great to whip it into better shape. There was a taskforce a while back, but it seems that they didn't get much done. What say you? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 05:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

What say I? Well, much like good truffling pigs, good sourcing editors are hard to find in this neck of the bayou given most are lazy and prone to letting things slide because sourcing means work, reverting gets dull and someone said on a forum/myspace comment that they saw that episode and figured out the same thing too so it must be true. We've had luck in the past with User:WhisperToMe regarding the Camp Lazlo articles and from what vague memories I have, there should be a decent amount of sourced content out there given that the makers of Zim were pretty open. Problem with Zim source hunting is that you do have to go through a lot of goo in order to find snacks, so very much goo. So yeah, don't know if it's because I'm swimming in the wrong pond or that this specific area is no better than some fringe belief articles at times but it is what it is, make fun with it. treelo _radda 09:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Whisper and I are stuck. The article is surprisingly adequate, it just needs a little more sources. However, none of the stuff I'm digging up states anything that isn't already cited to a source. The rest of it is just plot summary which needs at the very least a couple primary sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, seeing as Nickelodeon wanted shot of Zim almost immediately I don't think there'd be much in the way but it depends what you need. Did you not manage to get a copy of the book Whisper suggested? About as close as you're going to get to a primary source but I'd say to search about on Jhonen's blog and do a Google Books search, see what that gets you two. treelo _radda 22:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I have absolutely no money, so getting the book is out of the question for a while. Combing Jhonen's blog and Twitter turned up a lot of weirdness but almost no Zim-ness. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

You don't say, well there's always the library and whilst it ain't scoring me squat it might do for you or Whisper. I'd buy it but I think Jerry Beck is a hack. treelo _radda 09:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Ahem

You, of all people, should know better than to a.) take a template to MFD instead of TFD, and b.) just boldly redirect instead in cases like this, which is exactly what someone else did two seconds after you opened the discussion. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 13:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Yup, like I didn't know either of those things when they happened, the MfD is because Twinkle defaults to MfD when dealing with templates oddly and I didn't bother to change it to TfD. Also, I did see it was redirected but to close it as a withdrawal less than 10 minutes after posting it felt like I screwed up. Never leave a mess behind that someone like you will pick up and push my nose into like you would your dog who doobied in the wrong place. Anyway, sorry father. treelo _radda 13:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Invader Zim template

What do you think? Should it go since almost half of it's redirected and half's at AFD, with only four actual articles using it now? Clearly nobody gives a rip either way, because I just relisted it at TFD. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Fine, I done !voted and and other just so it doesn't get ignored and relisted (not the done thing? Feh) and I will slap you with my own cluebat soon enough for that {{inactive}} change. treelo _radda 19:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you really think the project's only "semi" active? You're like, the only editor that's even trying to fix up cartoon articles and not stuff them with fancruft. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You flatter me too much and yes, I did say I would have used {{inactive}} but it wasn't fun to do so, much less for you to do it. Anyway, cartoon articles by their very nature are fucked from the start when it comes to reliability and decent OOU context and content but you have to do the best you can, cartoons are at the bottom of the entertainment dumpster for sources and people interested who are above the age of 16. treelo _radda 19:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, the Avatar articles are pretty well written. But then again, that one skews a little older than most. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, at least one of the Avatar articles is an FA, you don't get that too easily. My statement was not all encompassing of every single animated series aimed at children or not, only have to look at the megachurches of Family Guy, American Dad and The Simpsons. Except for those, most aren't looked after well enough at all, just stuff them with as much crap as a fan figures to be relevant as there's no quality control because the people dedicated to looking after it are the same people adding the crap, self-fufilling prophecy. treelo _radda 19:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's get The Brothers Flub to FA! Not. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Little different and, here's the bonus element, there's no sources. That is what separates the Avatars of the articles from.. well, The Brothers Flubs. All the articles with a decent infrastructure and hardcore of editors all have that in common, a well sourced subject which reliable sources document and write about, it's very rare for any animated series which isn't sophisticated for a kid-aimed series or aimed directly at adults to get that sort of attention hence why they're bad, nobody cares (to borrow a phrase). treelo _radda 19:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

See? That's what I'm talking about. Zim only had one more episode than Flub did (unless Flub was yanked before its time was up, and I'm getting a feeling that it was) and just because it targets a little older, Zim got a bunch more sources. Judging by the number of times that Flub's article was deleted before I finally made a decent one, there's a big block of "nobody cares" that's crushing most of the cartoon articles. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Not so much nobody cares to write, just for me it's more nobody cares to write anything relevant or with a sufficient quality to transcend the rest of the cruft. Different sort of issue for an article with more good sources than many higher profile but much lower quality articles have, be glad you don't have to defend Guapo and Fraz from useless guesswork from flyby fools. Still, you mention it didn't get as much interest as Zim got, reasoning I'd say was that now having caught an episode was that you'd think it came out in 1993. Zim was skewing differently by way of basic look and feel and quality put into it, Flub felt more identikit and similar to other shows that have been shown time before during the mid to late 80's. That's merely me though. treelo _radda 20:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) You do have a point there. Although I have to ask, where did you happen to catch an episode of Flub? I got my fix at a tape I found buried in Big Lots ages ago. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I looked hard for it, just one episode though and it isn't a physical copy. Don't think it even aired here, not an indictment on the show itself of course. Anyway, back on the topic at hand, the issue with cartoon articles is that truly dependent on the audience it manages to corral will be the one to decide ultimately the content of the article. Don't let it be said that everyone who watched Zim was above 16, it might have caused interest and been accessible if you were outside the intended demo but doesn't mean that intended demo didn't watch it. Also, crazed fans. Remember the dumpster of entertainment? Above us there's the following layers (not in order or accuracy); reality shows, tween live action, kids films, gameshows and finally country music. Of those groups, the bottom five layers may get wet with crazed fanboi drool and there is nothing you can do about it. treelo _radda 20:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Where it all went wrong

That's like the 7-layer ISO model. Yngvarr (t) (c) 21:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

No, this one goes to six and I don't know what the 7-layer ISO model is. Wait, Wikipedia will know... treelo _radda 21:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It did, something to do with the centre of teh interweb apparently and it's called OSI. treelo _radda 21:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You lost me. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It's Ok. Just remember, Treelo's goes to six, but mine goes to 11. Yngvarr (t) (c) 22:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

That's Numberwang! Also, what the ferjuckers is an ISO model? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

ISO, OSI, depends on if you eat French Fries or Freedom Fries. I had a huge sermon typed out about the futileness of it, but figured, well, you can click as well as Treelo can. And no, it's not numbawang! That might be your next assignment, since you did so well with our prior suggestions (and there's no sarcasm on that last statement). Yngvarr (t) (c) 22:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Look, if you're not going to get the reference we'll have to learn you too, yknow. treelo _radda 22:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I did click on it and it still doesn't make any flipping sense. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I know. That's why we prefer the DoD model instead. Yngvarr (t) (c) 23:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't confuse me. Trying to learn a bout these models is like trying to learn Russian without first learning the Cyrillic alphabet. I need to start about 500 levels lower. I've had an internet connection since 1996ish and still haven't the faintest clue how it works. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Black magic and voodoo. Before Yng came along and derailed everything with his tech blabbedy-bloop, we were discussing cruft and crap like that and I never got to continue. As a warning to you, the otters, Cheyenne or anyone else figuring to angle him or herself another semi-prot for Chowder from a friendly admin please give it a few days so there's an excuse. OK, now, back to the dumpster... treelo _radda 23:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

So what, are we now done discussing? treelo _radda 10:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, since I uninvitedly hijacked the convo, I figured let it go back its normal course. Yngvarr (t) (c) 12:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You chased him off, you go get him back. A simple {{tb}} should do. treelo _radda 13:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Devil's wiktionary

Thanks. You're just the kind of mind I need for this project. I didn't realize how humor impaired I am (no idea why; it's not like I'm surrounding myself in Will Ferrell movies and lame Comedy Central specials). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

If you're a person who has a good sense of humour (by which I mean one which has been honed and trained to find the funny) then you should be able to do it. You though, I question why you picked this up, half the terms you got going don't even seem to be in your voice. I will try my bestest to serve you well, have you picked up MZMcBride's Wikimemes yet? treelo _radda 19:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, read The Onion, that'll help and also you do know you were beaten to this a year ago right? Same source of inspiration and even has the written approval of the Nine Old Admins. treelo _radda 19:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Screw it. I'm deleting mine. I hate to be an imitat…wait, others are editing this, it can't be too bad. It needs a lot of work. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It does, even with the fact of a signifigantly better list(s) existing. I should have the list but as my wikipedian value is much lower than yours you should have it so more witty people can edit it before I nominate it for MfD in a few weeks time as a waste. treelo _radda 21:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

User:ComputerWeb

Hi. I deleted the youngster's edit from the edit history, and left him a kindly message explaining it. Though you'd like to know. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 13:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks but this particular character has a thing for self-identifying from account to account and has been told not to most of those times, just isn't getting it I suppose. treelo _radda

Regarding summary-less episode list entries

With regard to [1]: Why would a (sourced!) entry consisting of just a title and a date be considered "useless"? The article is an episode *list*. I'd expect episodes to be listed there, regardless of whether or not they had summaries. Other episode lists on the wiki have summary-less episode entries. In addition, a person's reasoning for reading the article might be to find out when new episodes will air (even if wiki isn't a TV guide). The episode *will* air and it is a senseless waste of time to remove something that will just have to be re-added later. Either way, it's nice to know that someone's taking care of Chowder/etc. :) Nhjm449 (talk) 23:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

If you only have a title (even a sourced one, reliable is questionable) and cannot get an episode synopsis then you're not imparting much and there isn't a rush to get these things in. I'd choose depth of information over breadth in this case, the pool's already shallow as it is and whilst someone will have to re-enter the episode information it's better they do so when they can say what the episode is about rather than speculative guesses or shrugging and typing TBA. Also, Wikipedia really isn't a TV guide nor does this or any other list need to preempt episode airings even if other lists do so, the list isn't going anywhere so keep a hold on until information is available, even if it means waiting until the airdate itself. Not aimed down the line at you, got some goofballs around here doing this sort of thing and it's really something to have someone guessing at something some two weeks away. treelo _radda 00:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)