Jump to content

User talk:Mz7/December 2015–February 2016

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

Degrassi: Next Class episodes page

Hello Mz7! I know we've spoken before when I posted the Degrassi: Next Class episodes page before anything was really revealed. Now that things are revealed and we have our first episode title, I went ahead and put the page back up. But someone keeps messaging me angry that I put it back up. As you know, when an episode is revealed and the airdates, pages usually get updated to feature this update. So, why is it that the person messaging me is mad about it? You can take a look at the page if you want to verify that that is actual information and it should be kept up with the updates. As I told the person, I and whoever will update the page each time we get an episode confirmed. I mean, we have the airdates for the entire season for Netflix and the first 10 for Family Channel but I don't know if we should put those up just yet. Any input? Ijoshiexo (talk) 02:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ijoshiexo. I took a look at the list again and can understand where both of you are coming from. In my experience with editing television show articles, the episode lists have always started on the main article about the show, then split off when the list got long. A list that has only one episode isn't very informative, especially when it entirely duplicates information that is already stated elsewhere (namely, at Degrassi: Next Class (season 1)). This isn't to say we shouldn't create a list ever, but it may still be too soon to create one at this time. My recommendation would be to merge the list into the Degrassi: Next Class (season 1) article, where the episode list is already repeated, then recreate the list when the episode list there grows unwieldy. When I worked with Sonic Boom (TV series), the group of editors working on that page agreed on the talk page to split it off to List of Sonic Boom episodes after 26 episodes were confirmed. However, I can also see this number drastically lower, closer to maybe 9 or 10 episodes. Ultimately, this is left to editorial discretion. Regards, Mz7 (talk) 15:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Mz7, I see what you're saying. I know the page was patrolled by someone because I got a message and they didn't message me about changing anything. But when I get time after finals, I'll consider what you were talking about with the marge. I made this page only because it'd be weird to put the episode on the main page when it's Degrassi: The Next Generation as well haha. Thank you for responding! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ijoshiexo (talk • contribs) 18:57, 3 December 2015‎ (UTC)
You're welcome. There's no deadline. Let me know if there is anything else you need. Mz7 (talk) 19:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 December 2015

The Signpost: 09 December 2015

The Signpost: 16 December 2015

Season's Greetings!

Hello Mz7: Enjoy the holiday season and upcoming winter solstice, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America1000 22:54, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Template talk:AFC submission#Notability decline message wording

You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:AFC submission#Notability decline message wording. You proposed the original edit request for the template, so I thought you'd be interested. Thanks. APerson (talk!) 15:58, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi APerson, thanks for letting me know! Mz7 (talk) 20:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and happy new year

Merry Christmas and happy new year. (:

--Pine✉

Degrassi: Next Class seasons

Hey there! I have two topics I'd like to discuss with you. The first is the merger. I think it would be best to merge the pages but I don't know how. But that brings me to my second topic. On Twitter, the executive producer of Degrassi: NC, Stephen Stohn, responded to a fan asking if the season was actually 2 and he said "Yes!". So that means the 20 episodes are split into 2 for Netflix and Family (I don't know why but that's the way the networks wanted it). I first noticed something was off during filming of the "season" because the second batch had production codes of 201-210. So I need your advice. Should we keep the episodes page and add "season 2" since its supposedly being released later next year and add another season page like season 1? We also have the first episode for the second batch due to Family's press site (geo blocked in America though). Its just that when Netflix said "All episodes on January 15th", everyone took it as all 20 but we didn't realize they had split it into 2 during filming. Before I do anything, I need your advice. We know its the same cast members for both seasons and it was all filmed within 2 1/2 months during the summer so..

Anyways, thank you in advance and I am sorry for bothering you! Ijoshiexo (talk) 22:16, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello Ijoshiexo. Thank you for contacting me. Are you saying that there are now two 10-episode seasons of Degrassi: Next Class being released separately? I would continue to merge the episodes list to the season 1 article until we have more information about the second season. I will help work on the merge as soon as I get the time—a step-by-step guide for merging is available at WP:SMERGE. As a side note, do you think we should have a standalone article for Degrassi: Next Class itself? Happy holidays, Mz7 (talk) 03:01, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Mz7. You're welcome! Thank you for responding. And yes, the 20 episodes are being split into two different seasons. But yeah, lets just merge it until we get more info on the "second season". It's definitely a confusing situation. And about the standalone article. I'm not sure on that seeing as they say its just the "reboot/second incarnation" of Degrassi: TNG but also its own show. The original premise of the first season Next Class was season 15 of "Degrassi: TNG" but with the new title "Degrassi: Next Class". So that's why I kept it linked with the original page. It seemed better, at the time, than making a new page for a show that's basically the same as the other. Like I said, its definitely confusing. If making a new page for the entire series would be better, then I can definitely get on that soon. Just let me know your thoughts on it, first. Happy holidays to you as well and thanks again, Ijoshiexo (talk) 03:21, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

26 December 2015

I had Roy Colsey for gym in middle school and he was a total jerk. He sent me to the principal for having a scraped knee. I was just telling the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jubresner (talk • contribs) 02:27, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello Jubresner. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; it is not a soapbox for you to air personal grudges against article subjects. If you are interested in contributing constructively to this encyclopedia, I invite you to take a look at our introduction to contributing. Best, Mz7 (talk) 02:40, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I think we should say that he is tough on his students. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jubresner (talk • contribs) 02:43, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

@Jubresner: No. Wikipedia content built on three fundamental principles we call the "core content policies". They are that Wikipedia articles:
  1. must be verifiable (meaning that readers should be able to check that what is being written is true),
  2. written from a neutral point of view (meaning that all opinions and viewpoints on a topic are represented fairly and without bias), and
  3. must not contain original research (meaning we only write about what reliable sources have written about).
Jointly interpreted, these three policies form the backbone for almost every other content policy or guideline we have here. In particular, we have much stricter policies regarding how we write about living people. Wikipedia is not the place for you to disparage subjects by posting content that is not substantiated by reliable sources (a violation of all three core content policies and a possible violation of our libel policy). Mz7 (talk) 02:48, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Empathy in chickens

File:えべチュン (9227778368).jpg

Dear Mz7 - I can't begin to express my shock and horror at finding out that my article has been merged. I do not remember getting any kind of notification about the merge. I hereby respectfully request that the article be unmerged and that I be allowed to work on it and establish it as a notable topic worthy of being in the encyclopedia with additional references and wikifying. When I showed my chickens that the article had been merged, they broke out in tears! I realize that this might be original research but I certainly would not include my personal anecdotal experience in the article. (the rooster did not seem to care....) The Very Best of Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  22:19, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Greetings, Bfpage. If I had done that merge all by myself as a WP:BOLD action, I would be un-merging it right now per your request (those poor chickens! ). Unfortunately, this isn't the case. The merge was actually done in accordance with a pretty clear consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Empathy in chickens. You were notified of this discussion by the nominator and even offered your comments. You are welcome, of course, to start a new discussion at Talk:Emotion in animals. Your old article is still available to view in the page history, which you can copy to your userspace to work on, if you would like. Respectfully yours, Mz7 (talk) 23:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
I must be losing it! I don't even remember being notified but I certainly believe you, utterly. Consensus? Really? Obviously the consensors did not recognize the absolutely, unquestionable deep emotions of chickens and how they all have been affected by the snub. Oh well, even though the world will suffer from it, I have to get over and move onto...hmmm, how about pessimism in bees (there really are reliable sources for that.) I can't wait. I will fight that merge tooth and stinger. The Very Best of Regards and thank you for taking this discussion in the way it was intended, new friend.
  Bfpage |leave a message  23:51, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
I want to actually contest the merge at this point. I just looked at the article into which my article was merged and was shocked that it was reduced to a mere four sentences:
"The capacity of domestic hens to experience empathy has been studied. Mother hens show one of the essential underpinning attributes of empathy: the ability to be affected by, and share, the emotional state of their distressed chicks.[60][61][62] However, evidence for empathy between familiar adult hens has not yet been found.[63]"
My article had 13 references establishing notability, an image, and a 'further reading' section. The merge dropped nine references and further reading suggestions. This was not an honest merge. I assume good faith but is my only option to bring it to the talk page? Why can't it just be restored with improvements?
  Bfpage |leave a message  02:03, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
@Bfpage: DrChrissy merged everything they felt was relevant and appropriate. Perhaps a lot of material was cut (it was a selective merge), but they did specifically say they were okay with others merging additional material if they felt it was appropriate. My reading of the deletion discussion consensus has less to do with notability, but a broader question of whether the subject is suitable as a standalone encyclopedia article. The editors felt that there was nothing to indicate that this specific emotion (empathy) of this specific animal (chicken) was any more significant than all other emotion-animal combinations described in the Emotion in animals article, and thus there is no encyclopedic need to have a standalone article. The reason I strongly recommend starting with the talk page is because restoring it immediately would directly go against this consensus. If no one responds/opposes, then you may feel free to recreate. Mz7 (talk) 02:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Great advice and thank you...I still appreciate your humour. bfp
I have now started the discussion on the Animal cognition article talk page. Best Regards,
  Bfpage |leave a message  13:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Degrassi: Next Class

Hello there. Upon further thought, I've decided that it'd be best to go ahead and split the "Degrassi: TNG" and "Degrassi: NC" pages. It will take some time to redo everything but I'm up to the task. I'll first create the new page and add the info and then go back and edit the original page and make sure it's up to date. Anything else you think I need to handle? :)Ijoshiexo (talk) 02:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

@Ijoshiexo: Sounds like a plan. I don't really know anything about Degrassi to evaluate whether we should split the pages, so I will trust your judgment. Mz7 (talk) 04:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
@Mz7: Haha, thanks. I'll start on it tonight. That also poses the question on whether to bring the "Episode page" back since the season is now split into 2. What do you think on that? Ijoshiexo (talk) 04:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
@Ijoshiexo: The episode list will be recreated eventually, but as I said earlier, we should probably wait until we have more information about the episodes so that we can create a cohesive list that isn't duplicative of Degrassi: Next Class (season 1). Mz7 (talk) 23:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
@Mz7: Yes, that is true. Definitely a good idea to wait. Oh and by the way, the "Degrassi: Next Class" page is up and I've also edited the "Degrassi" page. Please let me know what you think.-- Joshie (New Horizons Await You) 23:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 December 2015

Happy New Year, Mz7!

Happy New Year!

Mz7,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. North America1000 04:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Deadmau5 edit

Mz7,

Thanks for helping me with the edit! Just wanted to mention that you missed adding whitespace between the entry that you added and the line above.

Thanks, SnowdogU77 (talk) 07:12, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@SnowdogU77: You're welcome. I appended the information to that existing paragraph intentionally, because I felt that the two events were naturally related to each other, i.e. "deadmau5 closes his Twitter" → "deadmau5 reopens his Twitter with explanation". That section currently suffers from rather severe proseline, which we want go away from. I hope this helps. Best, Mz7 (talk) 20:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
@Mz7: Okay, makes sense I've noticed that "proseline" has become a bit plague-like around here, but I hadn't put much thought into how much it detracts from the quality of the articles. Thanks for the explanation! Thanks, SnowdogU77 (talk) 06:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 January 2016

The Signpost: 13 January 2016

The Signpost: 20 January 2016

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 January 2016

Orphaned non-free image File:Camden Collective.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Camden Collective.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 February 2016

Bad Aibling rail accident

Talk:Bad Aibling rail accident message from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bad_Aibling_rail_accident

accepted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Werther Hartwig (talk • contribs) 00:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


Removing deaths list

I would like you to stop removing the list due to WP:UNCENSORED. However, I don't know if these people are notable enough. I'd say you can if they're not notable. RotubirtnoC (talk) 00:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi RotubirtnoC, I've started a discussion at Talk:Bad Aibling rail accident#Names of victims. I am well aware, however, that Wikipedia is not censored. My arguments, however, aren't that the information be censored, but rather, whether including them is in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, as well as general community norms. Per WP:UNCENSORED: Content will be removed if it is judged to violate Wikipedia policies (especially those on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view). I hope this resolves the censorship issue, and I hope we can discuss the policy issue. Mz7 (talk) 00:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 February 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 February 2016

Edit warring at History of the Jews in New Zealand

Thank you for warning the IP user. Normally by now, I would have reported this user and asked for a block or topic block, but it has been my experience that the only admins who take action at this time of day (4.58 pm in New Zealand) are in time zones where they are at present asleep. I have previously made urgent requests during daylight hours in NZ, and not had a response for hours. Akld guy (talk) 03:59, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

@Akld guy: Sure thing. I think whoever it is, they are confused about the source they have, and they can't access the census data (which is inconveniently stored in an Excel file that one must download to access). I've tried explaining the situation and warned them about the edit warring. Hopefully, this will resolve the situation. Mz7 (talk) 04:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I've tried more or less the same explanation of how to get to the figure. I've been down this track before and know these figures pretty well. Akld guy (talk) 04:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mz7/December_2015–February_2016&oldid=1083615922"