User talk:Matthewedwards/Archives/1

CI

Whatever it takes, I know I can make it through

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Matthewedwards/Archives, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! __meco 06:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userspace layout

Hi, I was bold and gave you a virtual copy of my talk page header style. I changed the color so that both are somewhat unique, hid the archive box (you have no talk archives), and removed links relevant only for an admin. If you like it, I'll put a copy of a similar version for your main userpage into your sandbox. Sound good? :) Nihiltres^(t.l) 17:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nihiltres. It looks great. You're right about the archive - I don't need that just yet! With regards to putting a copy of the main user page into my sandbox, I'd really appreciate that. Thankyou again -- Matthew Edwards 21:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. :) I cleared out most of the userpage's content and added general instructions for use in the text. It shouldn't be too hard from there, but you can come to me with any questions about the layout. Nihiltres^(t.l) 02:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the [show] and [hide] links

{{helpme}}How do I make the templates always be showing, instead of having to click on the [show] link to see them. I'd rather be able to click [hide] if I don't want to see the content.

Adding ".NavContent{ display: block ! important; }" (without quotes) to your monobook.css will cause some of them to show, but not those with "class=autocollapse", which I think will need a JavaScript solution. Try asking on the technical village pump.--Werdan7^{T @} 01:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome :)--Werdan7^{T @} 01:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merging

And you got the San Franciscans merge finished in addition to volunteering to do the Mexican American/Chicano ones. I was hoping that somebody else would get to it if I put it off long enough. Pairadox 12:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I may just leave it for you, then. I wouldn't want to take anything away from you

-- Matthew Edwards 21:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, go ahead. I wouldn't want anybody to think that I have ownership issues with the articles.

Pairadox 21:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This User is extremely ~~lazy~~ ~~tired~~ busy right now because he is ~~sleeping~~ ~~watching TV~~ checking for vandalism. Please try again later

-- Matthew Edwards 21:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I give. I can't top that. (But you still get to do the merge.)

Pairadox 21:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did it. And I merged List of Chicano poets into the list, too

-- Matthew Edwards 23:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Degrassi: The Next Generation

Hi. I've noticed you added {{Notability|episode|date=August 2007}} and {{Cleanup|date=August 2007}} tags to the episode articles of Degrassi: The Next Generation. At Weddings, Parties, Anything (D:TNG episode), I've rewritten the entire page, and removed the tags. Please let me know, however, if more needs doing. If the page is fine, I am going to rewrite the episode articles of all the D:TNG episodes. -- Matthew Edwards 07:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the various Degrassi episode articles are all due to be listed for a review; see: WP:TV-REVIEW. It looks like you've addressed the clean-up issue but not the notability issue. Basically, individual episodes of tv shows are not notable and even if you clean all of the Degrassi episode articles up they will probably end up redirected to the LOE page. See the guideline at WP:EPISODE and consider whether you really feel that the individual episode articles can be established as notable. There may be specific episodes where you can find good sources (not tv.com and imdb.com) and I would recommend that you focus your efforts on those. --Jack Merridew 12:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why, though. If this is to be the case, surely every single episode guide for every single TV show has to be {{notablility}} tagged. Those at Lost, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Desperate Housewives, should also be tagged, for instance. I'm not having a go at you, but who's to say what is notable and what isn't. (Or is that what the review is for?) Where would I go to put my two-cent's worth to keep the D"TNG episode pages? Thank you -- Matthew Edwards 17:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a question of citing reliable 3rd party sources and writing articles that are more than a plot summary. Most tv show episode articles should be tagged, reviewed, and most will end up redirected. The fact that it has not all happened is simply due to the fact that there are many such episode articles extant and there are many fans who like their shows. Think for a moment about how many shows there are on how many networks in how many countries and start multiplying numbers together and you'll realize that an article per episode will result in millions of 'articles'. See the links I gave above for policies and examples of 'good' episode articles. best, --Jack Merridew 10:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC) (who is just too busy for this issue at the moment)[reply]

Wonderful... There's not that many 3rd party sources for information that are not fan pages. Oh well! -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs | 03:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that is the essence of their non-notability. --Jack 12:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I see that you've "listed" these episode on the WP:TV-REVIEW page, but have not really followed the format used which entails notifying a lot of talk pages to give interested editors a heads-up. The tv-review process is rather back-logged at the moment, but I'll open a formal discussion tomorrow - if you don't do so yourself. --Jack Merridew 12:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I didn't list them in "upcoming reviews", I only added the discussion page cos no one else had. If you don't mind I'll leave it to you to do what needs doing, you seem to know what that entails. -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs | 17:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TV Ratings

{{helpme}}I'm doing a couple of articles about TV episodes and have two questions on the same subject: The first one I have is, What is the name of the company (and the website) who keep track of TV ratings in Canada, like Nielsen Ratings do for America, and BARB in the UK.

Second, I've been looking at the Nielson website for the ratings of specific TV episodes from a year ago, they don't seem to have it. Is there anywhere on the internet who archives this information, and for the Canadian rating people, too? Thanks -- Matthew Edwards 21:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried the Miscellaneous section of Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in answering knowledge questions, while {{helpme}} is designed for questions about using and editing Wikipedia. For your convenience, here is the link to post a question there: click here. I hope this helps.--Werdan7^{T @} 21:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: thanks for your help!

Well, that's certainly inconvenient. Glad I was able to help, feel free to let me know if you ever have problems in the future. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Degrassi list

Hello! Perhaps you could just move the Degrassi list to the correct area? It should probably be nominated for Featured list at Featured list candidates rather than for Featured article at Featured article candidates. That's all I meant - if you want to repost my comment, you can, but it is best to move the nomination now, I think. Awadewit | talk 05:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC) Ah, I understand you now. Thankyou. -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 05:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FL Main page proposal

You either nominated a WP:FLC or closed such a nomination this year. As such, you are the type of editor whose opinion I am soliciting. We now have over 400 featured lists and seem to be promoting in excess of 30 per month of late (41 in August and 42 in September). When Today's featured article (TFA) started (2004-02-22), they only had about 200 featured articles and were barely promoting 20 new ones per month. I think the quality of featured lists is at least as good as the quality of featured articles was when they started appearing on the main page. Thus, I am ready to open debate on a proposal to institute a List of the Day on the main page with nominations starting November 1 2007, voting starting December 1 2007 and main page appearances starting January 1 2008. For brevity, the proposal page does not discuss the details of eventual main page content, but since the work has already been done, you should consider this proposal assuming the eventual main page will resemble either an excerpted list format or an abbreviated text format. The proposal page does not debate whether starting with weekly list main page entries would be better than daily entries. However, I suspect persons in favor of weekly lists are really voicing opinions against lists on the main page since neither TFA nor Picture of the day started as weekly endeavors, to the best of my knowledge. Right now debate seems to be among support for the current selective democratic/consensus based proposal, a selective dictatorial approach like that used at WP:TFA or a non-selective first in line/calendar approach like that used at WP:POTD. See the List of the Day proposal and comment at WP:LOTDP and its talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 19:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:D-TNGs05e05.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:D-TNGs05e05.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 15:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOTD proposal

You have nominated a recently successful WP:FL. There have been two recent proposals to begin a List of the Day feature on the main page, which have both received majorities but have not been approved as overwhelming support sufficient to change the main page. WP:LOTDP is a new proposal to try to get the ball rolling based on the original proposal. You can voice your thoughts on its talk page. Basically, what the proposal entails is attempting to run an official trial, and then vote after the trial run on whether to change the main page. Support to run a trial requires much less consensus than support to change the main page. Should we succeed at eventually getting such a feature on the main page it would tentatively look like this. Whether or not you support an experimental trial or not you should come discuss the matter at WP:LOTDP's talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox user warning templates

Matthew, I need to comment out the relevant wiki markup on the pages in your sandbox using Template:Templatesnotice, because it causes those pages to appear in Category:User warning templates, which consists of templates that have been standardized as part of WP:UW. Their presence there makes them targets for deletion as we remove obsolete templates, and I want to prevent your sandbox from getting caught in that. I hope you don't mind. Cheers. Bsherr 22:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Featured List of the Day Experiment

There have been a series of proposals to initiate a Featured List of the Day on the main page. Numerous proposals have been put forth. After the third one failed, I audited all WP:FL's in order to begin an experiment in my own user space that will hopefully get it going. Today, it commences at WP:LOTD. Afterwards I created my experimental page, a new proposal was set forth to do a featured list that is strikingly similar to my own which is to do a user page experimental featured list, but no format has been confirmed and mechanism set in place. I continue to be willing to do the experiment myself and with this posting it commences. Please submit any list that you would like to have considered for list of the day in the month of January 2008 by the end of this month to WP:LOTD and its subpages. You may submit multiple lists for consideration.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 18:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WLA

This user wants you to join the
Los Angeles area task force.

(♠Taifarious1♠) 02:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Degrassi Season pages

Saw the post over at the Episode list talk page, though I'd offer some thoughts since you mentioned wondering which list format to use. :) I personally think the Simpson and Smallville style would work better for Degrassi than the Lost format. Smallville's lists, in particular, are rather nice, except for the slightly too long intro. Hopefully part of the effort would include better episode summaries that actually summarize each episode instead of just being teasers?

Good luck with the effort! I know it will be quite a bit of work, but considering the length of the show, I think it will be worth it and its a much better and preferred solution to having individual episode pages as well :) Collectonian (talk) 03:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I haven't looked at Smallville's, but if it's similar to The Simpson's, I prefer that, too.

Take a look at Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 1), are the episode recaps not to standard? I always thought an episode summary was a teaser.. and isn't that what the Lost and The Simpsons season articles have?

A good episode summary should, ideally, give a summary of the whole story, covering all important parts. A teaser really doesn't give the reader any more info than a TV guide :P Then again, looking at some other lists, I see it goes both ways, so may be a personal preference thing. Collectonian (talk) 04:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which articles do you think have good summaries, rather than teasers, just for refernce sake? -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 04:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. List of Trinity Blood episodes is one (though its one I did, so probably biased LOL). List of X-Men episodes is fairly good with short summaries that still manage to cover the whole episode. Looking at most of the lists, though, almost all the FAs seem to be teaser types (though I haven't seen most of those shows so can't say for 100% sure). Well pooh...never mind me then :P Collectonian (talk) 04:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

League of Copyeditors roll call

Greetings from the League of Copyeditors. Your name is listed on our members page, but we are unsure how many of the people listed there are still active contributors to the League's activities. If you are still interested in participating in the work of the League, please follow the instructions at the members page to add your name to the active members list. Once you have done that, you might want to familiarise yourself with the new requests system, which has replaced the old /proofreading subpage. As the old system is now deprecated, the main efforts of the League should be to clear the substantial backlog which still exists there.
The League's services are in as high demand as ever, as evinced by the increasing backlog on our requests pages, both old and new. While FA and GA reviewers regularly praise the League's contributions to reviewed articles, we remain perennially understaffed. Fulfilling requests to polish the prose of Wikipedia's highest-profile articles is a way that editors can make a very noticeable difference to the appearance of the encyclopedia. On behalf of the League, if you do consider yourself to have left, I hope you will consider rejoining; if you consider yourself inactive, I hope you will consider returning to respond to just one request per week, or as many as you can manage. Merry Christmas and happy editing, The League of Copyeditors.

Melon‑Bot (STOP!) 18:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]