User talk:TAnthony/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Other infoboxes

Sorry for eavesdropping, but we're moving towards removing age fields from fictional character infoboxes. We took them out of the South Park characters recently, for instance. The problem is that the ages of fictional characters can change (which is what I think this discussion is about. tl;dr and all that). Each time it changes, a sentence of explanation is needed, and that doesn't fit well in an infobox, but it does in the body of the article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

No, thanks for commenting, obviously I noticed it was gone from a few templates and was wondering if it was a trend (I stopped watching Template talk:Infobox character a long time ago). I am pro-infobox, but I feel that despite some revisions over time there are some inherent problems at times and a lot of abuse. People get really caught up in fictional topics (myself included) and can forget this is an encyclopedia and not a compendium of infinite detail.— TAnthony^Talk 05:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like people watching this talk page may have an interest, so please comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Age fields in fictional character infoboxes. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll go and respond quickly there. Flyer22 (talk) 08:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It might have been nice if we'd discussed, then come to a consensus about the changes that needed to be made in Erica Kane before you went ahead and did it, but I guess we can do that now.

The viewer response to Kendall's age causing inconsistencies with Erica's age is not unsourced, though the term "outcry" was probably exaggerating it. It is sourced by the source nearest it. Are supposed to put a source after every period? I'm all for taking the years that aren't mentioned in sources out, but the way you have it right now is incorrect since you left in the original 16 for Kendall's age took out how the writers changed her age to 23. I know that might sound trivial, but I think it's important because the viewer response is what caused the change.

The longer this discussion goes on, the more I see that it's probably best to take the age out of the infobox. The character's age has changed so much in ways that aren't even mentioned in the article, that it just seems pointless to try to pinpoint and argue about it. Besides, I still say it goes against WP: TENSE the same both residence and occupation do. Rocksey (talk) 17:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, my head is spinning here, LOL. Are we saying that Kendall was aged from 16 to 23 while Gellar was in the role? This is one of those times some kind of direct quote in the reference would help, because I've looked through the Spence book and don't see anything that mentions the Kendall situation at all. My issue here is mispresentation of facts. Editors make assumptions and perform calculations. We can perhaps say, "Viewer reaction to the discrepancy created by Erica having a 16-year-old daughter as the product of a 24-year-old rape prompted the series to adjust her child's age to 23" (if that's true). But all the talk about Erica's birthdate and age changing is a misrepresentation, and OR, unless a reliable source is actually saying "Erica is now said to be born in 1962 and is 47" or whatever. Rewrite the section how you think it should go, I know you have a grasp on what is a reporting of the facts and what is OR or editor POV. There may not be a direct source at the moment that credits viewers with the Kendall change, but it's OK for now if the way it's written is likely true.— TAnthony^Talk 18:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I mentioned the change of the ages in article. This is what it said before, "Due to Erica's original 1955 birth year, this caused an outcry from viewers of the series since Erica's age at the time of the rape combined with Kendall's age conflicted with the All My Children timeline and made Erica and Kendall too young. The writers attempted to rectify this by aging Kendall to 23 years old and scripting the character to repeatedly mention her new age, emphasizing the change". Your wording would probably work better since it's straight to the point. I don't have the Spence book anymore because I got it on inter-library loan, but Consuming Pleasures: Active Audiences and Serial Fictions from Dickens to Soap Opera by Jennifer Hayward does mention it. My scan of the page is barely readable so here's a link to the page on google books [1]. So I guess we can use this as the source. Rocksey (talk) 19:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Rocksey, this is excellent. This is exactly the kind of sourcing that is needed to make a character's age notable. AniMate^draw 19:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's great, I'm not insisting that you use my exact words, but the old way seemed to ramble a bit, and citing "1955" and the wording "since Erica's age at the time of the rape combined with Kendall's age conflicted with the All My Children timeline and made Erica and Kendall too young" makes it feel like editor extrapolation even if it's not exactly. I hadn't recalled the exact nature of the age change, and as nothing was in the source, it smacked of the kind of unsourced "fans hated the recast and so the actor was let go" POV we see all the time around here.— TAnthony^Talk 19:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I am still not seeing how what Rocksey notes goes against WP:TENSE, but her perhaps she can explain that on my talk page. If we have to compromise with TAnthony on noting the outcry about Erica's first age change, as it seems we do, I am okay with his wording: "Viewer reaction to the discrepancy created by Erica having a 16-year-old daughter as the product of a 24-year-old rape prompted the series to adjust her child's age to 23."

As for Kendall's current age being okay to note because it is likely true, that is the same way I feel about Erica Kane's current age of 47. Flyer22 (talk) 20:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I am quite familiar with that Jennifer Hayward source, as witnessed by my work on the Todd Manning article. I also went to a library one day to read it. Good source indeed, Rocksey. Flyer22 (talk) 21:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Flyrer, the reason I think it goes against WP: TENSE is because it changes depending on the current present of the character and isn't true throughout the rest of the character's storyline, even though that too should be in the present. If that makes any sense at all. While watching a 1970 episode of the show, the age that used to be in the article wouldn't be accurate, neither would the occupations or the residence. In other words, it pinpoints now as the present and the rest of the storyline is in the past. Rocksey (talk) 21:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

This is so well-put, have to glanced at the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Age fields in fictional character infoboxes yet? — TAnthony^Talk 23:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

You make good points about this, Rocksey, which is basically what I stated you probably meant above. But this "being in a different part of the story than another viewer or reader" thing is "problematic" with character infoboxes from other genres as well. I would not say that WP:TENSE really applies to the character infobox, though. Plus, readers know that a character with a lot of history has usually changed over the years, which includes the character's storyline; the character may currently be listed as something else, despite whatever point the viewer or reader is within the story. I would say that things in the infobox which indicate time should simply be seen as a "skip ahead in the story" (simply a future part of the story they now know due to having gotten a glimpse of what is ahead for the character). If you look at the well-written and well-sourced article for Twilight character Bella Swan, it lists her age in three different time periods. Her age does not even have to be sourced in reference format...because the books are the references. Flyer22 (talk) 22:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

TAnthony, I'll check outthat discussion.

Flyer, I guess I interpret WP: TENSE as applying to the infobox too because I think it should apply to all of the plot, which would include most of the infobox information. I don't think we can do the same for Erica Kane as is done for Bella Swan though since the character is a diffinitive age at certain points in each book and Erica doesn't have one diffinitive age for for on year at a time (ex. in 1970 she begins the show as 15, then graduates high school that same year and starts going to PVU.) Rocksey (talk) 18:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I still do not feel that WP:TENSE should apply to the character infobox, for the reasons I stated above. Take Todd Manning's name, for example. It is not revealed until 1998 that his birth name is Thomas. Does that mean that we should take his birth name out of the lead of the article? That is my point. But I am all for you taking your concerns to other editors of either aspect of the Wiki television project and seeing what they think about this. Flyer22 (talk) 22:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

List of General Hospital minor characters

Do you like the article and the function? --Leslie Roak (talk) 23:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm OK with the concept (I did the same thing for One Life to Live) but I know from experience that you will get some complaints from die-hard GH editors for some of your choices. For example, the Patrick and Claudia articles were definitely lacking in references and real-world context, but I would guess most GH editors would consider them worthy of articles. And the Ethan article actually survived an AfD recently, which means that in a formal discussion it at least met the minimum requirements for inclusion. Another thing you may not have thought about is that most of the images will end up being removed; even though each one is for a different character, they appear like an "image gallery," and the next member of what I like to call the "image police" will strip them.

I'm not sure if you're really a new editor or not, but I would seriously stay away from drastic changes like this until you've gained more experience, and the trust of other editors. I think people are less likely to trust the judgement of a new editor, and you may not know enough to adequately argue your side (even if your actions are correct). I'm interested to see the outcome of this and may get involved in some of the discussions, but I've been frustrated lately with the GH articles, and honestly they're low enough on my "importance meter" that it's not worth it!

I do have a few suggestions though:

1. Change the list name to List of General Hospital miscellaneous characters (and don't forget to change the redirects). This way you're not saying the characters are unimportant, it's just about the fact that the material isn't substantial enough for individual articles. I made the name name change for OLTL, because people would complain about current contract players being there, even though they were new or there wasn't a lot to be said about them.
2. Accept that you will probably have to remove some or all current contract players from the list and restore their individual articles to appease the community. You may want to restore some of them pre-emptively or as soon as you're challenged as a good faith gesture.
3. I would actually consider copying the infoboxes in the article too; I didn't use them in One Life to Live miscellaneous characters but I put them in General Hospital: Night Shift characters, and I like it. Plus, you're not losing the date info and such from existing articles, which adds some real-world context. In cases where the infobox is longer than the article text, use {{-}} after the text to push the next section past the infobox.
4. Take a look at Category:General Hospital characters, find stubs or short articles for old characters no longer on the show (like Ruby Anderson) and collect some of those into this article. It'll be a lot less controversial, and you'd be doing a much-needed service for Wikipedia. When you're done with that, there are tons of old Days characters that could use collecting as well ;)

Good luck, I'll try to keep an eye out.— TAnthony^Talk 00:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Roak-here: Thanks

Thanks for cleaning up and fixing the Claudia Corinthos article. It's highly highly appreciated. Do you have any info on this randy person and how Animate believes there's a connection>? --Leslie Roak (talk) 01:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Randy is a long and complicated story, but check out User talk:Randy Jaiyan for some of it. He is an editor that has been blocked forever, but returns occasionally under different names. He was very disruptive and destructive, and someone usually figures out he's back because he falls into the same behavior with the same articles. One of his issues was an obsession with certain GH characters like Carly; he did a lot with page moves and redirects regarding her name. I don't necessarily think you're him, but you have made some Randy-like edits, and AniMate is more of an "Randy expert" than I am. Anyway, you just need to be a little more thoughtful when making major changes; yes, the soap articles here need a lot of work, but not necessarily in the way you think. Whether you are right or not, Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and often times we have to compromise to make the community happy with the way an article is changed. And try to understand, you're new, and some people aren't going to trust your judgment on controversial issues because you haven't really been around long enough to have seen policy and discussion in action across different articles. I know sometimes we just want to get things done, but there's never a rush, and discussing drastic changes first is always the best policy.— TAnthony^Talk 03:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Bro.,--Leslie Roak (talk) 20:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It has started: Character age mess again

As I stated at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television: Exactly what I feared...has now started, and one day after I stated it would -- people finding other ways to add the age but not in an encyclopedic, or rather not in the best, way, as seen in this link. This will probably start to happen to a few prime time drama character articles that are using the soap opera character infobox as well, such as ones of the The O.C. (most of which are already in bad shape). This IP is doing this to other articles. But, for the record, he or she may be User:Nk3play2, as accused of being so by you.

Sigh, removing the age from the infobox is clearly not going to keep IPs and editors from playing with the age in other ways within these articles. Will it cut down on this "play"? That remains to be seen. Flyer22 (talk) 11:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'm with Flyer. The Michael Corinthos artcle now has a subsection callled "Notes" that states all of the chracter's previous ages. Plus, Is'nt the Infobox used to supposed to contain character information and age is information, not trivia. I'm petioning to put it back. --Leslie Roak (talk) 16:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Roak, by all means participate in the discussion at WP:TV, but you are against consensus thus far, so it stays removed. The Sam McCall thing is annoying, but I actually like that the info is no longer hidden in the infobox, because now editors and admins with an understanding of policy can more easily find and remove this trivia. In many cases this info has a natural place in the text of an article, like the way we've added the conflicting info about Erica Kane's "age," but in cases like Sam McCall these silly IP fangirls are doing our work for us by calling attention to the idiocy of this trivia.— TAnthony^Talk 18:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Roak

I've had it up to here with this guy. He's once again added Carly's "birthday" with a year plucked out of a hat. Between the comments you pointed out on his page and his interactions at User talk:Clau5dia8 and User talk:TAnthony AniMate, I'm fairly certain there's enough to start a sock investigation. There's no way those three aren't related. I'm going to start an SPI draft in my user space once I eat and down some advil. If I'm going overboard let me know, and this may be pointless since as soon as anything's filed he's likely going to turn around and do the same thing accusing you of being my sock (or vice-versa, still not sure which one of us is supposed to be the master here). Anyway, tell me what you think if you're around. I'm off to Ralphs. AniMate^draw 02:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm so with you, it totally occurred to me that this Clau5dia8 was a sock, they both seem to use "shit" the same way, LOL ... I was serious about reporting Roak the next time I see some disruptive behavior, I'd love to see your formal assessment of that situation. And a sock investigation of us might be fun, probably one of the rare times CheckUser actually proves that two editors are unrelated.— TAnthony^Talk 04:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Well he went on another birthday spree. His calculations have Jason as 27, Michael as 11, and Carly as 37. I guess that means that Jason and Carly first had sex when he was 15 and she was 26. Scandalous. I'll get working on the report soon enough. AniMate^draw 05:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I got the shit idea from Clau5dia8. And again, blocking threats and obscession with Carly.--Leslie Roak (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Best insult ever. I'm considering changing my username to Unholy Fag. AniMate^draw 23:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow. AniMate^draw 00:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

WOW is right!! I now officially love CheckUser. But do you really think it's Randy?? — TAnthony^Talk 02:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

No doubts here. Looking through some of the socks you're going to find some really bad page moves, some of which seem to be designed to piss you off. Remember the Dynasty names debacle? Also, BreakingDawn 90210 made edits to What I Like About You a truly awful sitcom that Randy loved. It's him. AniMate^draw 03:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Ugh. I was irritated that you called me a "Randy expert" up above, but I just realized I totally am. So sad. AniMate^draw 03:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

LOL, all I meant was that I totally missed the original Randy drama and only know of him through some subsequent socks (and not much at that), while you seem to have witnessed it all.— TAnthony^Talk 03:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

LOL

This may turn out to be one of the most amusing comments I've made, I crack myself up. ;) — TAnthony^Talk 06:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Maury

Hi TAnthony

This is Cantai101 again. Last time I asked you about how NBC was selling new Passions episodes to DirecTV and why NBC continued the website. I have a new question to ask you. I have seen that there is a NBC Universal Television Studio and a NBC Universal Television Distribution. Why is there two different companies within the NBC network company? I have seen that at the end of The Maury Show, it shows "NBC Universal Television Distribution". But with Passions, Law and Order and other shows, it is "NBC Universal Television Studio". Isn't Maury produced by NBC Universal Television Studio?

please reply back at your convenient time.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cantai101 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

There are actual several sub-companies under NBC Universal, for various reasons ... and to clarify, the NBC network (which airs shows) and the NBC Universal production companies (which produce shows) are also separate divisions. For example, some shows are produced under the "Universal Media Studios" banner, and some (like Parks & Recreation) under "Open 4 Business Productions," both wholly-owned NBCU subsidiary "companies." I don't know the technicalities regarding Maury, but I would guess that it's under another business unit either because of the genre (talk vs. scripted), the distribution (syndicated vs. network), or something to do with ownership; the show originated as a coproduction between CBS and Povich's production co, and its ownership has changed a few times over the years, so I'm sure it's convoluted. For example, NBCU may own all or a portion of the series but not directly fund production. In any case, if you are asking so that you can add these types of details to the respective articles, I would remind you that we can only cite facts from verifiable sources, we cannot try to interpret what they mean. If I'm remembering the Passions-related edit(s), I believe my point was that it was OK to note that NBC continued to host the official site after the move to DirecTV, but not OK to make unsourced assumptions about why. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 02:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi TAnthony, Thanks for the reply. Although I don't seem to quite understand it clearly, I can see how the ownerships are different. I researched articles on NBC making a deal to air Passions only on DirecTV after the peacock(NBC) network canceled the series. I researched that DirecTV purchased exclusive rights to the series including that DirecTV completely paid for the production cost leaving NBC Universal to pay zero. However NBC does own the show and if NBC decided they wanted to air the DirecTV episodes or have another broadcast network purchase the rights to air Passions, can NBC do that or would it violate the contract NBC had with DirecTV? I am just asking out of curiosity. Did NBC at least try to find another broadcast network to air Passions because it seems like NBC did not make hard enough attempts to continue keep the series on broadcast television. After DirecTV bought the new episodes to air, most fans could not see the episodes and I assume that the ratings dropped a lot after leaving NBC for a specific subscription service. LOL to be honest I wish My Network TV had picked up the series and air it as a weekend soap instead of the traditional weekdays that way it can attract more of the young audiences on a weekend and at least the production cost would be a lot cheaper to air it once a week. It would have been great for My Network TV. I wish that NBC would have left it canceled instead of giving it to DirecTV if no broadcast network was willing to take it in because at least all fans would have seen a happy ending and then leave at that, but they gave the show to DirecTV and it caused all these complaints on NBC.com.

Cantai101

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cantai101 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you got the idea that "DirecTV completely paid for the production cost leaving NBC Universal to pay zero" ... technically what occurred is that NBCU produced the episodes at its own expense, and DirecTV paid a licensing fee for the right to air the episodes a certain amount of times. This is the typical procedure; for the initial run of the series, the NBC network paid NBC Studios a license fee as well. Even though it is internal, these business units still act as separate entities for various reasons, including a proper accounting of expenses and revenues as well as tax and insurance reasons. We can also assume that NBC Studios made some kind of profit per episode from DirecTV and from the NBC network before it, just as DirecTV earns revenue from subscribers and the NBC Network earns revenue from advertisers. I do not know the particulars of the NBC-DirecTV deal, but it can also be assumed that DirecTV purchased the right to air certain Passions episodes a certain amount of times over certain period of time, but NBCU retained its right to eventually sell and/or distribute them at some point in the future, be it on other GE-owned networks, or sold to external networks, or on DVD or something. NBC definitely did shop the series around, but the DirecTV deal was either the only one or the only profitable one, we'll never know. You have to remember that TV is a business and TV shows are products being sold. For a network to "buy" them, they have to believe that they will be able to earn more advertising dollars from airing the shows than they spent to buy them. Passions was low-rated, which presumably made it less desirable than other programming. But for DirecTV, which relies on subscribers rather than advertisers to make money, the show was actually a good opportunity. The number of viewers on network television still far outnumber DirecTV subscribers. Passions ratings were comparatively low for a network series, but if only a fraction of its existing viewers had signed up for DirecTV, it would have been a significant gain for DirecTV. DirecTV has never made it public the number of subscribers they were hoping for or how many they may have gotten because of Passions, but some articles have suggested that they didn't hit their target or at least didn't think continuing the show would be valuable for them in the long-term.— TAnthony^Talk 04:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi TAnthony.

I am so sorry I took so long to reply to what you said about DirecTV buying a license fee to air Passions from NBC Universal. Been busy and didn't have the time to read the reply.

anyhow, I found that research from Variety.com. http://www.variety.com/index.asp?layout=print_story&articleid=VR1117963754&categoryid=14

that is where it mentions about all production costs absorbed by DirecTV and I assumed that NBC Universal didn't have to pay a penny to the productions.

Anyhow thanks for providing me the inside info. Since the Passions site is still on NBC.com, I wish they would make the DirecTV season available for free viewing one day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cantai101 (talk • contribs) 12:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Melrose

Regarding the Melrose reboot, the sources note that six more scripts have been ordered (which is noted within the article), not that six more episodes will be produced. This is an important differentiation. This is a common situation when it has not been decided whether a series will be kept or cancelled; scripts are obviously written in advance of production, and not commissioning more scripts would prevent new episodes from being shot when the current run of shows have been completed (and shutting down or holding a crew for weeks costs more money than just buying some scripts that may never be produced). You are basically violating WP:CRYSTAL by extrapolating what the source says to the next "logical" step. When and if these episodes are produced, some source will exist to confirm it, and it is not detrimental to the article to leave the "19" out.— TAnthony^Talk 23:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

R_to_section template usage

Hello TAnthony, what is your understanding of the proper usage of {{R to section}}? I read is a being for those redirects that specifically target a section, that is, the template is appropriate if and only if there is a "#" in the redirect target link.

I see that you have added this template to several redirects that do not specifically target a section, such as with Sloppy Firsts, where you tagged it while merging a stub. This strikes me as an error, but I wanted to check with you before correcting it (and others).

I know that even if the topic of a redirect is only discussed in one section, it is often not appropriate to redirect to the section as section redirects can be disorienting, landing a reader in the middle of a page. Do you understand {{R to section}} as appropriate for redirects whose subject is discussed in only one section but which do not target the section in the redirect link? -- ToE^T 01:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you're more or less correct about your understanding of the purpose of {{R to section}} ... I don't recall my thinking when redirecting Sloppy Firsts in particular, but it seems as though this situation doesn't exactly have a perfect solution. First of all, I didn't technically merge any of the content from the Sloppy Firsts stub, so {{R from merge}} probably didn't feel right. That novel is noted in the "Novels" section of the Jessica Darling article, but the section has little content, so a) actually redirecting to that section would be jostling because the reader has no context of what it's all about, and b) the article is so short that I think it would appear the same in many browsers (lead still visible at the top). I do think you're being a little strict about the necessity of a # in the redirect, because I think the more important point is that the redirected topic is covered within a section, not necessarily that the redirect goes directly there (though in most cases, I'd agree with you). That said, if you have objections, by all means use a different redirect template. What are you thinking, {{R from merge}}? In cases where nothing has been merged, I'd think that might also seem like an error. — TAnthony^Talk 04:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I strongly agree with your a) and b) points as they applie to Sloppy Firsts and many other articles where, for similar reasons, a redirect to the section itself is clearly undesirable, despite the topic of the redirect being discussed in only one section.

Whether or not my "gotta-have-a-#" interpretation of {{R to section}} is overly strict is what I am trying to determine. I will bring the subject up in another forum (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirect initially, with perhaps a note at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)). My interest in this is that it marks redirects that are sensitive to section title changes, and I think the current documentation of {{R to section}} supports the "gotta-have-a-#" idea by saying, "This is a redirect from a topic, name or term that does not have its own article, to an article section which covers the subject." This is, or course, just one edit away from reading "... to an article with a section ...", so I need to discover what the current consensus is.

I understand you to say that there should be some template with which to tag a redirect whose title is not synonymous with the target article, but which is covered in a section, and that you possibly think that there should be a distinction between those cases where it is the main topic of the section (where you think {{R to section}} could apply if my "gotta-have-a-#" interpretation doesn't hold) and where it is only mentioned in passing in the section. -- ToE^T 05:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

What is it you strongly disagree with? And how would you fix the Sloppy Firsts redirect? — TAnthony^Talk 06:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

My issue is only with {{R to section}}, or more specifically, with articles that link to sections and thus need extra vigilance for broken links as editors change section titles. I do believe that {{R to section}} is intended to mark such redirects, and 96.5% of redirects tagged with this template do link to a section. Some of the remaining 3.5% used to link to a section but have been subsequently redirected without having the template removed. The balance, however, were specifically tagged with this template while not targeting a section, an example being Sloppy Firsts. Four editors account for 80% of these edits, and you and G.A.S were the two who were active today, so I dropped notes on your talk pages.

What I would like to do (if my understanding of {{R to section}} is correct) is just to remove that template (unless it appears that a section redirect is called for, such with as this edit to Klick (fictional species)) and I would then consider the article fixed. However, I do not consider it appropriate to walk in and say, "give me back my template," without providing an alternative. So my plan was to find out what people were actually using it for, to determine if my "gotta-have-a-#" interpretation is correct, and to find an appropriate substitute for its current minority use. -- ToE^T 07:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Here are all 33 of the redirects that you tagged {{R to section}} but don't actually redirect to a section.

Anne Boleyn (The Tudors character) -- Around the World Submerged -- Aurelia Rivera -- Brady Lloyd -- Chalice Corrino -- Charles Brandon (The Tudors character) -- Cindy Brennan -- ET on MTV -- Ernesto Rivera -- Foldspace -- Garrett Boydston -- Handlers (Dune) -- Henry VIII (The Tudors character) -- How Opal Mehta Got Kissed, Got Wild, and Got a Life -- How Opal Mehta Got Kissed, Got Wild and Got a Life -- Isabella Santi -- Jipol -- Josifa Corrino -- Keri Reynolds -- LGBT characters -- Lady Rochford (The Tudors character) -- Opal Mehta -- Phil Brennan -- Princess Mary Tudor (The Tudors) character -- Rugi Corrino -- Shvaughn Erin -- Sigma Draconis IV -- Sigma draconis IV -- Sloppy Firsts -- Stella Lipschitz -- Tanner Woods -- Tanuja Desai Hidier -- Ursula Blackwell

I'd be happy to fix them, if you'd like, if we determine that {{R to template}} is inappropriate and agree on an appropriate replacement template. Does {{R from subtopic}} catch the sense of what you are trying to designate? -- ToE^T 14:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection to your changing them, as I do see your point/the advantage in using {{R to section}} in a straightforward manner. {{R from subtopic}} seems right, but it doesn't exactly exist. {{R with possibilities}} is fine, except that I don't believe any of the redirects above are topics worthy of expansion (and the template description suggests that they should be). That said, it's probably the closest fit.— TAnthony^Talk 15:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The more I look, the less I'm sure about everything. I'm about to broach the subject in a larger forum, so I wanted you to confirm that if it is decided that {{R to section}} should only be used in the strict sense, then you feel that there needs to be a template to replace it in cases such as Sloppy Firsts and Around the World Submerged -- something along the lines of {{R from subtopic}} without the baggage of being a redirect to {{R with possibilities}}.

I ask because I am new to the whole redirect template scene, and while I understand {{R from misspelling}} and its kin that mark a redirect as unprintworthy, I had not imagined this sort of tagging. I've no problem with it, but I don't want to advocate (on the basis of a misunderstanding) for something that nobody wants. -- ToE^T 04:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The instructions for {{R with possibilities}} explicitly state that "Conversely, if the topic is not susceptible to a major expansion, tag instead with Template:R to section, or Template:R to list entry, depending on how the topic should be handled." Clearly the differentiation is being made between topics with potential and those without. This doesn't explicitly contradict your idea of the proper usage for {{R to section}}, but it doesn't take into account topics which are unlikely to deserve expansion but may not have a precise section dedicated to them at the logical target article (and are unlikely to). The history of {{R from subtopic}} vs. {{R with possibilities}} is convoluted and spread out, so I don't know what the timeline of merging, splitting, moving or renaming these templates might have been. But of the over 500 redirects which still use {{R from subtopic}}, most seem to be along the lines of South Koreans in the Philippines redirecting to Koreans in the Philippines. I'd love to read the discussion that resulted in the merge/redirect of {{R from subtopic}}, because obviously those redirects don't exactly fit cleanly within the scope of {{R with possibilities}} as it its written. In any case, someone other than me has clearly thought about the potential expansion of redirected topics, and advocating your "stricter" usage of {{R to section}} (and thereby adjust the usage of {{R with possibilities}} as described above) may have to go hand-in-hand with providing an alternative for these redirects with little potential. Perhaps just a recreation of {tl|R from subtopic}}? — TAnthony^Talk 07:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Oliver Fish

I just wanted to say awesome new article. You did excellent work with this. Mind if it is listed at Template talk:Did you know? I could nominate it if you want. Of course...that would mean me coming up with a hook, unless you suggest one. Flyer22 (talk) 21:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks ... I hadn't thought to do that, hmmm, what would be a good hook? Perhaps "... that an upcoming gay storyline featuring sexually confused police officer Oliver Fish prompted an actress unhappy with the plot to be replaced?" I hate to be sensationalistic, but to a general reader that's probably what makes the character notable. At least, that was my justification for creating an article about a relatively minor character ;) Anyway, I requested a peer review to get some feedback from the community at large. — TAnthony^Talk 23:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

LOL, I always go for sensationalism when suggesting hooks at DYK. I would go along the lines of your suggestion...but tweak it to "...that an upcoming gay storyline on the American daytime drama One Life to Live featuring sexually confused police officer Oliver Fish created controversy when an actress objected to the storyline and was subsequently replaced?" Well, something like that. "Prompted" is probably a better word to use in place of "created," for different reasons (I also considered "resulted in," but nah). They prefer the show's name to be in it, I know (and, I think, the country the show is from). When you list it there, there will be people coming up with suggestions they view as better if they are not really for your hook. Then you will compromise for the best hook.

As for the peer review, if I have anything valuable to say, I will weigh in on it. Right now, I do not see much of any criticism on my part about the article. Flyer22 (talk) 00:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, meant to include the show name ... OK, just did it, thanks for the idea!— TAnthony^Talk 01:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I am certain the article will be included on the main page. It really is a good read. Flyer22 (talk) 01:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, TAnthony. Did you create this article on the 24th or the 25th of July? I have been meaning to ask, because I saw you listed it in the 24 section. I did not ask earlier and did not want to say anything because I am sure you would know better than anyone the day you created the article. But my curiosity has since gotten the better of me. The article's history shows you to have created it on the 25th, but I take it that this was simply Wikipedia time? Flyer22 (talk) 06:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

That's funny, when I look at the history it says the 24th ... — TAnthony^Talk 06:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I actually see the 25th as well. Are you using the time offset in your user preferences? AniMate^draw 07:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it's set for LA ... this comes up for me as: Revision as of 20:45, July 24, 2009. You? — TAnthony^Talk 07:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

03:45, 25 July 2009 for me. You are using the time offset function in your user preferences. I think we're generally supposed to go by UTC time (the server default) for "official" times. I'd also like to echo Flyer's comment. It's a great read. AniMate^draw 07:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. And thanks for the compliment; it's still somewhat thin because the storyline is in its infancy, but it's a nice article to work on because he isn't a widely known/popular character and it has yet to be discovered by the trivia nuts ;) — TAnthony^Talk 07:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the help with "Roaker" today. You're much more diplomatic than me. You needn't worry too much about the trivia nuts. They mainly focus on General Hospital, though Days and Y&R get their fair share. I just wish someone would beef up some of the other soap articles. My bet is within a year the Guiding Light articles will be massacred, though considering the quality of most soap articles, that isn't necessarily a bad thing. AniMate^draw 07:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes I'm diplomatic, sometimes I'm a dick ;) BTW, why are you up this late too?? Wiki nerds. LOL — TAnthony^Talk 07:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It's only 12:30! I also don't work tomorrow, I'm home alone (save for a very needy cat), and... I'm a wiki-nerd. I'm actually working on some real life things, but having a browser window open keeps me from working too hard. I still say you're much more diplomatic than I am, since it takes you a few more hours to reach dick mode, though I'd given up diplomacy several days ago. I should take your advice and take these articles off my watchlist, but... too. damn. stubborn. AniMate^draw 07:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for helping to clear up the Oliver Fish creation date. I was so tempted to have you put the article in the 25 section, TAnthony, because I wanted you to have an extra day for the chance to get the article on the main page through DYK, but I kept quiet about it for the reasons I stated above. I was like, "Maybe, off by one day is okay in this case, since we got it nominated soon enough." But, really, it seems that every day, as in all chances you have to get the article accepted, should be taken advantage of. Not that big of a deal, though, since it is not like it was nominated at the last minute, LOL. It is all good, either way... Though I say they should have chosen the article. Flyer22 (talk) 10:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Oooh, look below on your talk page, LOL; Oliver Fish made it to DYK (not that you do not already know)... Um...told you so. It does not matter that just a little earlier I thought it was over for that article making it. I was right, LOL.

Anyway, congratulations, man. Flyer22 (talk) 03:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for the suggestion!— TAnthony^Talk 16:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Just dropping by to state that part of the controversy surrounding this character was discussed on The O'Reilly Factor. Well, mainly Patricia Mauceri's dismassal as character Carlotta Vega. I am not sure why they are just now reporting on it, though. Flyer22 (talk) 02:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Oliver Fish

On August 3, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Oliver Fish, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 14:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't you dare insult me and think you will get away with it.

There is no need to respond so bitterly. That was taken by me in September 2006 from a December 1995 opening sequence. I uploaded that on September 24, 2006 to the MSN OLTL Groups website under my account there. These are owned by ABC, but for you to be posting these on Wikipedia like you captured them is not very honest. If I have any issue with you, it is that you behave like everything you post/say here(soap section) is fact and anything otherwise is false. I don't think I'll need to grow up. You certainly need to calm down though. Please learn to spell and use proper grammar. I do apologize for claiming theft, that wasn't needed to get my message across.

Carmaker1 (talk) 21:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I make it clear here in the FUR template for File:Joey-NathanFillion-1995.jpg that I uploaded an image I got from the MSN group. I made no claims that I owned the image or screencapped it myself. You suggest rudely here that I "stole" this image and have misrepresented its origins. I care nothing about getting "credit" for capturing or uploading images, I am merely documenting sources where I can. Your edit summary was ridiculous, but I'm glad you've taken credit for this image and given us the details of how you grabbed it so everyone here will know how great you are. LOL.

Spell? Proper grammar? What are you talking about?? — TAnthony^Talk 00:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Bless you

Thank god I decided to click through your edits. Over a decade (!) ago, I lost my VHS copy of Twin Peaks in a messy break up. That was back when people still used VCRs. I have the first season on DVD and was always disappointed that Lynch never released the second season. While I'm not overly fond of the whole Windom Earle saga, I did enjoy Leland's death and Josie getting turned into a drawer knob. I had no idea that they released the second season, but now I do thanks to your image. I'm literally bouncing in my seat with joy and have ordered the gold edition. Hee! I'm considering going to hunt down some cherry pie. I wish typing conveyed how painfully excited I am right now! I may just dance a jig! AniMate^draw 01:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

LOL, glad to be of service!— TAnthony^Talk 06:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Two things. I found my old copy of The Secret Diary of Laura Palmer. I am officially a nerd. Also, Kevin Buchanan actually was on the show today. I'm guessing you weren't watching. AniMate^draw 07:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to you, the most frequent phrase heard at my home is "I don't know." Somehow I fell in love with a David Lynch virgin. I've managed to control my disgust and am trying to explain that Lynch's productions aren't necessarily meant to be understood... even after repeated viewings. Anyway, we're making our way through "Twin Peaks" and he keeps asking me questions I can't answer. I can't wait until we watch "Blue Velvet" and "Mulholland Drive". AniMate 08:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Montaj13

These sock reports are becoming a regular thing. Does he usually hit the same articles? Perhaps rather than filing reports some extended semi protection would keep things calm. You should also ask about a range block. I haven't the foggiest idea how to implement one, but if there isn't too much collateral damage, it could be effective. Here's a tool to see how many editors could potentially be affected. Hope everything is well and you're not stressed over turkey. AniMate 05:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey man! Yeah, I was in Paris for Thanksgiving, so no turkey for me LOL. They did protect the article in question from my last report, and there are definitely an identifiable group of regular articles she (just guessing at gender here) edits, but this editor is actually very active and there are literally dozens (of which I'm only watching a few). Many of her edits in general seem fine, but of course she is indefinitely blocked, and continues to add blatant copyvios as the mood strikes her. I'm definitely considering a rangeblock when I'm in the mood to research it and contruct a case. Don't be a stranger! — TAnthony^Talk 06:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The tool confirmed that up to 32768 users would be blocked if we went with a range based on her historical IPs; this is probably unacceptable! How frustrating.— TAnthony^Talk 06:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I was very prepared to help before I went to sleep tonight, but those who have just returned from Parisian vacations get no sympathy from me. No blocks for you! AniMate 06:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

LOL, would it help if I said I was really tired?!— TAnthony^Talk 06:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Hell no. We hosted Thanksgiving for 12. You don't know tired. However, since I'm a much better person than you, I've blocked the IP. AniMate 06:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!!— TAnthony^Talk 06:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

A question regarding Non-free rationale documentation

Hello, TAnthony. Ww2censor has raised a question in my talk page to which you can best answer. I'm also mildly interested in the answer so, I thought I'd better speed up the communication. Would you please kindly respond? Fleet Command (talk) 06:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Back in February this year you created the documentation for the template {{Non-free image rationale}} in which you wrote, in the "low resolution" field that: The rule of thumb for raster images is no more than 300 pixels in width or height. Where did that figure come from, was there a consensus for it and if so where is that discussion? Since then Masem has changed it with this edit but I would like the answers to why the 300px size was chosen because I quote it as a guideline size which other have questioned the limit. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 03:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Ww2censor.

Yes, I did create that page but I did not create its contents! You see, the documentations were originally non-transcluded integral parts of Template:Non-free image data and Template:Non-free image rationale. I just created the documentation pages to separate the documentations from the templates. (Reasons are numerous).

As for the number to which you are referring, it was in the template documentations when TAnthony first created the templates in 1 November 2007. (Refer to the first revision for verification.) I have no idea where the numbers have come from. You may like to contact TAnthony.

Fleet Command (talk) 06:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, 2007 is a lifetime ago, eh? I used the ubiquitous {{Non-free use rationale}} as a starting point to create {{Non-free image data}} and {{Non-free image rationale}}; at that time the 300px language was part of {{Non-free use rationale}} (it is in footnote #2, which will not display on the revision history screen at this point but you can obviously see it when you view the source code). It seems to have been introduced to that template here on May 16, 2007. It remained there until the notes were moved to the documentation here on February 23, 2008, and that same day the specific 300px restriction was removed here. I quote the 300px size myself, I'd be interested to know the origins of it, but it seems like too moot of a point to bother asking the editor who introduced it.— TAnthony^Talk 16:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Best edit summary ever

Nice. AniMate 05:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Dune (franchise)

I have finished my GA review of the article. Please visit Talk:Dune (franchise)/GA1 and comment on anything you disagree with. We can work on cleaning up the article if you wish, however I foresee large amounts of research in expanding the scope as I describe. My suggested course of action would be to let it fail, do a little more work on the article in the coming weeks and then renominate it, that way you can get some more fresh eyes on the article. Sadads (talk) 18:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Did you have any questions about the review? Sadads (talk) 22:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

tagging

Sorry, Anthony, I should have warned you first about my edit. I felt the sourcing got improved, the article is on your watch list, thus notability issue is less urgent. After I noticed that the article has pretty impressive list of foreign language siblings, notability doubt almost disappeared. I'll continue to gather sources if you don't mind. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm still completely not understanding what you see as the purpose for this "article." All it does is go into too much detail about plot and etymology. And pointing out which Arabic words may have inspired Herbert isn't appropriate if a reliable source isn't connecting this etymology specifically to Herbert's work.— TAnthony^Talk 17:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I've just noticed AfD . Is The seven beauties of science fiction by Istvan Csicsery-Ronay, Jr., Istvan Csicsery-Ronay (Jr.) book a WP:RS? It is available via Google books. Maybe you can spare some time looking into it. You might be surprised, the relation is clearly noticed and classified in context of neology. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

This is link to Dune chapter. For clarity. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I read the passage when you first cited it in List of Dune terminology. This is a fine reference for suggesting that the word Muad'Dib comes from Arabic, and asks questions about Herbert's intentions in creating this varying similarities. But it does not a) come to any any real conclusions, or b) assert any kind of notability or explanation for the term Muad'Dib. I like this source and am glad you've brought it into the mix, I just don't see how it's useful in regard to this article.— TAnthony^Talk 18:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

All right, I'm not sure what Herbert's intentions were, though no doubt, according to The seven beauties students of Islam understand his intentions better, when he speaks about religion and Muad'Dib specifically. Some say that the ambiguous vocabulary was intended to generate discussion; it is completely up to each individual reader to interpret. Go figure it ;) 10x for discussion. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe this might be interesting, in context of litmus test. This reliable sources, independent of the subject, defines Muad'Dib as democracy and speculates about Herbert's intentions. Does it belong to the topic? Could it fit in Muad'Dib article, in your opinion? If yes then how ? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's technically a reliable source (it's a paper by someone who is not an acknowledged reviewer/expert/authority and I'm not sure what the publishing requirements of the site are) but it's a good application of Herbert's ideas and is exactly the kind of citation that could be useful. My whole point about the article is just that "Muad'Dib" is not the right article name/location for this topic. I still don't know what you think the article should become, but assuming you're thinking of an analysis of Paul as a messianic character, I believe the character's common name is Paul Atreides, and that's where the work should be done.— TAnthony^Talk 20:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the paper is WP:RS, by content and style and also because it came from Google scholar. To me the paper appears secondary reliable source. Don't get me wrong, I don't argue about Paul's common name fact, no one does. However in this particular paper, "Muad'Dib" means any ideology/ism used as excuse for violence. The author compares Muad'Dib ref by Qizarate priests with democracy ref by US government during 2003 Iraq War. Not really a common name reference in this case. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we build a WP topic around a metaphor made in one paper? If everyone loves Muad'Dib so much, there should not be a Paul Atreides article, and all that info collected under MuadDib. It is the same fictional character, and thus the same topic. The discussion of the term MuadDib having other implications should be featured in that same article. Create a second topic doesn't make sense.— TAnthony^Talk 21:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing Muad'Dib, Anthony. I'm not sure if you aware, but discussing personal motives in Wikipedia disputes is inappropriate generally. I would also appreciate if you take AfD unrelated arguments out of discussion. Let's observe File:Graham's_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg. Your central points were explicitly refuted by multiple angles. Do you think it is possible to reach some kind of consensus? And last WP:RS brings Herbert view on so called consensus reality, hope it helps. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain what you mean when you suggest I've "discussed personal motives"? I believe all comments I have made here, at Talk:Muad'Dib, and at the AfD are in direct relation to my belief that all the material in Muad'Dib is already or can be covered elsewhere adequately. I appreciate your efforts to find sources that mention Muad'Dib, but self-published essays by unknowns with no credentials as literary critics are not reliable sources. I'm not saying I disagree with the analyses made in these articles, but analysis and interpretation are opinions, and as a rule we cannot reference opinions here unless the source is reliable. I have not removed the references because we both know that the points made by these authors make perfect sense, are better than nothing, and are not controversial. But if I wrote an essay analyzing Dune and got a website to publish it, would you consider it a reliable source? Reliable sources exist that make all the right/same points about Paul as hero and messiah, we just haven't found them yet (and most will not be on the web). I'm going through the Touponce book now to find Paul-related analysis (as you may notice in the work I'm doing at Paul Atreides). It looks like the AfD I've initiated may fail, and of course I'm not going to go against whatever the consensus there is, but in the meantime I am allowed to argue my position.— TAnthony^Talk 17:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Anthony, I already told you, I'm glad you are watching the page. My additions usually should be reviewed ;) Anyway, 10x for discussion. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey there, I'm aware that I can have a steamroller approach at times LOL, but obviously it's never personal and I'm always just trying to improve articles. We don't know yet what will happen with the Muad'Dib article yet, but as you can see I've been copyediting it and such as if it will be around forever. Thanks!— TAnthony^Talk 17:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your approach and glad that you feel like that. However I have concerns with those two recent edits: 1 2

1. I don't mind tagging Bahayeldin, I already mentioned my concerns. Though it looks good to me because of translations, I did not tag it in the List article. I strongly disagree about tagging other sources, especially during AfD. As far as I know Google scholar & books are WP:RS by definition. You are welcome to ask RS noticeboard on each specific source of cause if you want to be sure. And agree last consensus reality source was wacky with Imperialism and stuff ;)

2. Sources sometimes discuss Muad'Dib in context of Politics and Religion and not strictly in Paul Muad'Dib context. It is just the way it is. So should we as Wikipedia. Dialog is informational in Paul Muad'Dib context.

Hope you see what I mean. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Anthony, I voted keep on AfD, so I'm glad that it is over as keep. The process attracted editors attention towards the article and it had generally positive effect. I also appreciate your constructive editing approach. I guess more eyeballs - better. There could be 2nd and 3rd nominations, still the article is safe for now ;). Totally off topic and in the area of or, this book ties together desert Muad'Dib tradition, jerboa and Dune, though no relation to Herbert. Hope you enjoy it. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm obviously a Dune fan, so if the article is going to exist I want it to represent the material the best way it can. You may see tagging sources during an AfD as me trying to influence it in my direction, but I see untagging them as doing the same thing for your position, especially since they were added in the first place as a reaction to the AfD. I'm fine with the "keep" result, but you and I both know that editors see a few respectable-looking sources listed and get the impression that the topic is notable without actually looking into how reliable the sources really are and what the spirit of that coverage is. I don't object to the analysis presented in the references, but we can't assume weblinks are WP:RS just because they're in Google scholar, no one is actually vetting them. There are old discussions about this, like [2]. But at some point I'd also really like to discuss what you see as the concept of that section of the article. Right now it's just sort of a jumble of any sourced sentence that could be found on the topic. And maybe you'd better explain to me your view of the separation of Paul from Muad'Dib.— TAnthony^Talk 21:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello Anthony, could you please re-size the Clash of the Titans (2010) poster to match the Wrath of the Titans one? you can do this by adding a small amount of black onto the bottom of the Clash poster, it will look better on the wikipedia facebook page as well as wikipedia page. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PalodOro (talk • contribs) 18:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

dune

hi TAnthony, i'm curious to understand why my edit of the Dune cultural influences page is considered advertising yet the game and music references are not? Zoltancsaki (talk) 16:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

You're linking directly to a site that sells the t-shirts (and presumably created them), and also have not provided any source asserting that this merchandising is particularly notable. I personally think some of the game/music info is trivial, but it is cited with third-party references that seem to assert notability. Thanks for checking in! — TAnthony^Talk 20:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Actually the link out was to "the awesomer" which is a blog of all manner of cool stuff from cars to games to viral memes - pretty much anything you can imagine. They did not create the shirts and they are also not selling them either. Being one of the most heavily trafficked sited on the entire internet (alexa=25,787), I assumed that to be enough notability?Zoltancsaki (talk) 12:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

First of all, blogs are not acceptable sources (and they are indeed selling the shirt there), but even the site was OK, it's not the notability of the source but the notability of the actual shirt. We wouldn't talk about every article of clothing derived from Star Wars in detail, but we might talk about particular items which sparked notable lawsuits, were worn by the President during a state of the union speech, sold some record-breaking amount, etc etc.— TAnthony^Talk 23:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Long time, no see

Always good to see you around; your user page popped up on my watchlist. Flyer22 (talk) 04:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes indeed! Great to hear from you.— TAnthony^Talk 04:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope that you are doing well. Flyer22 (talk) 04:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Removing dead links

Hi TAnthony. I did know about archived web links, but I feel like they are irrelevant. What's the point if the web page has been removed in the present? If people want to find info on the show(s), they can click on the IMDb link that's at the bottom of the Wiki article. Most Wiki articles for tv shows have an IMDb link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.202.209.88 (talk) 06:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

First of all, IMDb is not considered a reliable source whereas an "official site" is. I realize that in many cases the links you're removing are not being used as citations, but Wikipedia itself is basically an archive of information and a road map to external sources, removing one for the reason that "it's old" doesn't make sense to me. And obviously I'm not alone in feeling that way. — TAnthony^Talk 17:36, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Dynasty (serial) episode

Hi, I respond to the following massage of yours:

"Hi, thanks for your contributions but I've I've reverted your changes to List of Dynasty episodes. Do you have a source for the dates you added? The existing original air dates are backed up by the packaging of the DVD releases.— TAnthonyTalk 02:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)"

There are sources of changes I made on a list of Dynasty episodes: Changes in season 3: sources: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081856/episodes?season=3 AND http://lbcolby.blogspot.cz/2011/04/dynasty-abc-episode-guide-season-3-1982.html

Changes in season 2: source: http://lbcolby.blogspot.cz/2011/04/dynasty-abc-episode-guide-season-2-1981.html.

Unfortunately, official US DVD releases contain mistakes (not only in texts, bus also with pictures - photos from season 5 or 7 are on DVD season 1). The most frequent mistakes are with date of opening episodes of season 2 and 3. Btw, premiere airing of episodes of season 4 are right on Wikipedia - but they are different than on official USA DVD release! LukeFuller1985 — Preceding unsigned comment added by LukeFuller1985 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, assuming you are correct about the DVDs, we still have a problem, because IMDb and blogs are not reliable sources either, as they are user-updated with no real fact-checking. The Dynasty episode list predates the DVDs anyway so I'm wondering where the info came from in the first place, it was pretty much all there when I started editing here in 2006. I haven't monitored it consistently so I don't quite know how accurate it all is. Ideas?— TAnthony^Talk 14:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Help with editing

So I have been working on A Song of Ice and Fire character pages for a bit, trying to do something about the bloated character list. My first article submission was for Eddard Stark. I submitted it for review to be published, but I would like some help trimming the article. The Ned Stark article I created is currently located in my sandbox. I really do need some help cutting the article down to size, and there are still some sections I haven't even created yet. Could you lend a quick hand? Eric the fever (talk) 22:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey there! Yeah I could easily help you tighten up the text but the biggest problem you have is that it's all plot. Some character articles get left unnoticed like that on Wikipedia but GoT is high profile now and it will probably get tagged and then redirected relatively quickly. There have been various individual character articles in the past that didn't last. I'd say the article should be at least 50% "other material" like analysis, that is backed up by citations. You've probably noticed what I've done lately with Tyrion Lannister and Jon Snow, I started my own character overhauls with them because there's a lot of material out there on them (they're popular). I've been collecting other research as I go and as you can imagine, I'm finding a lot more on Daenerys, Arya, Cersei and Jaime, etc. Though there should be some notable Ned stuff around. I imagine he's mentioned in a lot of articles about Season 1 of the TV series (though you also want to find whatever novel-specific stuff you can).

Like this: "A Game of Thrones: Analysis of Eddard "Ned" Stark". SparkNotes. Retrieved August 4, 2014.

Anyway, I don't have a lot of time right now to research but if you can find some stuff on Ned I can help you incorporate it. Actually some of the articles I've cited in Tyrion and Jon may have good quotes. — TAnthony^Talk 23:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

So I followed your advice, I dramatically pared back the plot details (though that could still use a bit of trimming) and started incorporating more analysis and background into the character's creation. This is what I have so far. It is still about 75% plot related stuff, but I think it is moving in the right direction. Eric the fever (talk) 01:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

That is a great improvement, I think you have the idea! Every character article will be a little different based on notability, appearances and available external material but I think you've got a great start going.— TAnthony^Talk 01:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Game of Thrones chapter information and GA articles

I took your suggestion and went looking for GA-rated articles that addressed chapter information in television adaptations. I prepared a proposal based on my findings. Your input would be welcome. There have been false springs before, but your suggestion might be about to resolve a content dispute that's been going on for four months. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Eddard Stark

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Pretty Little Liars

Umm.....yea..LOL. It violates WP:FLAG, and it violates WP:MOSTV#Broadcast, which specifically says not to just list every place that a show appears. As that goes into WP:INDISCRIMINATE as well.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Outlander

How important is it to change Cindy Elavsky's publisher to Times-Herald Newspapers? I've never taken the time to find out just what that is, but I checked and made sure she is still distributed by King Features, which is what I have been using. I don't bother with Downriver Sunday Times because that just happens to be a newspaper where I can find everything easily online. I don't know that it serves a purpose to show just the one paper out of many that probably have the column. Elavsky's own website is too complicated to use to find a specific column, not to mention that might be questioned as a reliable source. Doing it your way consistently could involve changing hundreds of references.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I did that automatically while doing general cleanup, technically King Features is fine but the actual citation added was from Downriver Sunday Times/Times-Herald so I updated it. There would be no need to start changing references everywhere, but the as far as I can tell the purpose is show where you got the information, not necessarily everywhere it's available. But I have no objection to King Features being noted obviously. — TAnthony^Talk 15:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions •

Outlander (TV series) "Broadcasts" section

Hi, thanks for informing me about the broadcast format. I read WP:TVINTL and changed my table to written prose form. I didn't know Wikipedia changed the "International Broadcast" tables, especially since I still see those tables on some television show's pages. I hope this change is correct. If not, then it can be deleted. Please let me know. Sue Kastle (talk) 20:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Valancourt Books

Hi TAnthony,

I have a complete list of all titles and ISBN numbers Valancourt Books has published. I am referencing their website to see what genre/time period they should be catalogued under. I am doing the Horror/Gay/Literary tomorrow. I held off because many of their titles are duplicated across each category (literary horror written by a gay author fits into three categories). I wasn't sure the best way to approach that but I think I'll just duplicate what is on their website and have a title listed more than once if necessary.

Thanks,

Glen arvon (talk) 19:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh OK, that's great. The one other thing is the order; order by Valancourt date is fine but I think it has less value without the actual years, that's something that should be considered for the future. And actually, converting it to a table so that readers can sort by title, author, original or reprint dates would help navigation and make it more useful.— TAnthony^Talk 19:46, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Richard III

Hello, I noticed that you are the most recent editor for the page on Richard III. I thought you might be able to correct/clarify a reference I noticed. It refers to Richard being made Knight of the Bath. When I followed the link, it refers to an order that was not established until 300 years later. 12:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.172.168 (talk)

Hi, the 2nd sentence of Order of the Bath establishes that it is based on a medieval practice in which gentlemen were named Knights of the Bath, and there is an entire section of the article on it. I included a Google Books link to Anstis' book in the article where he describes this ritual.— TAnthony^Talk 14:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Book cover caption changes

Why the change from "Cover of the 1st edition" to "1st edition cover"? Did I miss the memo, or what? Choor monster (talk) 23:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I've actually been updating the image parameter formats, but when I've come across captions like that I've sometimes trimmed them, why have the wordier "of the" when it can be simplified.— TAnthony^Talk 23:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Then I'm reverting. As it is, you're also incorrectly munged up the image parameter. See Template:infobox book, the format has been updated. Choor monster (talk) 23:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Um, the template documentation clearly says to use the bare filename, and not doing so puts the article into a hidden category for correction.— TAnthony^Talk 23:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

In the two instances I noticed, A Political Fable and A Smuggler's Bible (my apologies, I should have been upfront), you changed File:XXX.jpg to a [[File:XXX.jpg|180px]]. In addition, size is now a new parameter. Looking through your history, you've been doing the right thing it seems on everything else (and not modifying the caption as you did these two either). Choor monster (talk) 23:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Ooops, I can't read diffs. You fixed the file part (and I self-reverted that part and put the image size in separately). Choor monster (talk) 23:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah OK. But I also removed the image size on purpose, it's no longer really necessary in most cases because the template will default based on individual user prefs. The only time you really need to use the size parameter in this info box template now is if the source image is too large or an odd size and you want to force a particular size.— TAnthony^Talk 23:54, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'll take those out then. The template docs ought to be updated. (I am now fixing a bunch of infoboxes that I created using the old template.) Thanks. Choor monster (talk) 00:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Game of Thrones

Thank you for your input on the Game of Thrones article. I'm not as familiar with that series of articles and you and others and I understand the rationale behind the changes and the move now. I also see that you work in the Entertainment industry. I was at Hanna Barbera and Warner Bros. for several years. Its good to see another person with inside industry knowledge editing on WP. Best regards, --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

And thank you for the contribution, I hope it didn't seem like we were jumping all over you. The GoT franchise is so popular and sprawling that the articles get out of hand fast, and as you know, several sections of Game of Thrones have been split out into their own articles to accommodate the material. Thanks again!— TAnthony^Talk 17:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

No worries, since I patrol the Special:PendingChanges page, I know all too well just ridiculous things can get. Speaking of, looks like the main GoT article is due for some trimming or another split. 100K makes it a prime target. I'm happy to participate in a Talk page discussion and make some recommendations if you want a fresh set of eyes on the article. --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

By the way, what area of tv production are you involved in? Big studio, smaller production company, writing, Post? --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Tyrion Lannister

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Tyrion Lannister you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 22:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Tyrion Lannister

The article Tyrion Lannister you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Tyrion Lannister for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 16:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Tyrion Lannister

The article Tyrion Lannister you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Tyrion Lannister for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The GA star
	For your efforts in bringing Tyrion Lannister to GA status! — Ssven2 speak 2 me 07:56, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of WordFire Press for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article WordFire Press is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WordFire Press until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Tyrion Lannister

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Jacquetta of Luxembourg

To respond to your comments/criticisms:

• Yes- Gregory does mention the Melusine claim, it was from her work that I got the information and traced back the lineage myself, as you could by clicking the link to the Melusine page that I linked/cited in the statement.
• As for the rest, especially the parts about my assertions, I will be sure to cite them from the paper I wrote on Jacquetta that will be published at some point this year.

Thanks for your critiques, MedievalBabe (talk) 01:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)MedievalBabe

Book:A Song of Ice and Fire

Hi TAnthony, thanks for your initial edit on this book. Unlike articles, Wikipedia books have all italics and quotation marks placed within the link, not on the outside of the link, as this is for the purpose of printing (i.e. Pedia Press). So, it was no mistake that the initial layout happens to be appropriately established this way. Best, --Discographer (talk) 18:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Interquel

Actually, I was unaware of the RfD discussion, and have no problem with keeping the redirects; I just think that the terms are neologisms that shouldn't be used in articles as unexplained descriptions. Trivialist (talk) 00:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

The Royals

I do not believe I "misrepresented " any review I posted. A descriptive title of a review can and has been used in multiple articles written by/for legitimate news sites and here on Wiki. As for deleting, THAT was an accident. I have a new phone and am not used to the speed yet of certain keys...lol :( Cw84 (talk) 23:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I didn't mean to sound too accusatory, but in deleting negative quotes, splicing others together, and adding editor POV about the show's cult following, it was beginning to seem like you were trying to convey positive impressions where none existed, or muffle the negatives. I like the show as well and have tried to find positive comments, but in most reviews the minimal praise is overwhelmed by the negative.— TAnthony^Talk 23:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:PROVIT

You made this edit to Template:Harry Potter family tree at 14:00, 21 April 2015 and others like it shortly afterwards with the comment "Undo/Unexplained mass changes to family tree templates, no response on talk page" yet there is no question about the edit on Template talk:Harry Potter family tree, and you placed a question on my talk page at 13:57, 21 April 2015. Do you really think that giving someone 3 minutes to respond to a question is reasonable? -- PBS (talk) 15:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Someone else actually asked you about it on April 19, and other editors have begun reverting you in the same manner. In any case, family tree templates for fictional characters are treated as navigation templates, which are for navigation and don't need citations. If you are challenging this practice, you should start a discussion before you tag every such template on Wikipedia. If there has been some discussion on this topic, you should have noted it when making such sweeping changes.— TAnthony^Talk 15:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I responded to that person so you were incorrect to say "Undo/Unexplained mass changes to family tree templates, no response on talk page". If you had waited for me to make another edit before you started to revert my changes I would have pointed you to Template talk:Nerva–Antonine family tree, Template talk:Kennedy family tree, and in response to user "— Maile"'s similar question on my talk page: Template talk:Houston family tree -- PBS (talk) 15:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Once you have had a chance to read those posting please explain why you think that templates:

1. Ought not to be directly editable from within a page.
2. Are immune from the WP:V policy specifically WP:CHALLENGE and WP:BURDEN
3. why translucence templates such as Template:Buchanan family tree exist when they are only used in one article in this case Buchanan family. It seems like a level of complexity that is unneeded as it make it difficult for inexperienced editors to make changes to the tree.

-- PBS (talk) 16:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

So you are invoking WP:CHALLENGE against every family tree template, real or fictional? This is an interesting new application of that policy which I admit I've never seen. I think that and your navbox change (an interesting one I'm not totally against) should be discussed if you're going to implement them so widely in this manner, whether you are correct or not. I appreciate your attention to detail but certainly the fact that the information is easily verifiable in the linked biographical articles is enough? In practice most templates don't incorporate citations for simple readability. You are confirming these are navigation templates and yet insisting on citations. I'm not sure why, though I suppose your argument makes more sense in context of real-world biographical articles. But fictional characters, across the board?? Be serious. And the spirit of WP:CHALLENGE is the likelihood of real challenge when corroborating material is not easily available. You're really challenging JFK's parents in a tree that appears in all related articles? — TAnthony^Talk 16:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I am not going to be pedantic over whether they are navigation templates or not, because they often use navigation boxes. If the function of a tree was solely for navigation then instead of a tree a simple alphabetic list would suffice. See for example {{Norse paganism topics}}, but a family tree like an ancestor tree arranges the information in such a way that the tree is itself conveying information, and it conveys information that is often not available in any Wikipedia article (for example great-grandparents of). Indeed there is a strong argument that these trees breaks WP:SYN -- not an accusation on can lay against an alphabetic list like {{World War II city bombing}}. However let us put WP:SYN to one side as many people like to create trees and providing they are properly sourced they do little harm if they are collapsed. A problem is that they frequently generated by using easily accessible genealogical websites of dubious quality which is a good reason to insist on their being verified against reliable sources (see this recent WP:RS/N discussion).

If you read Template talk:Kennedy family tree you will see that in fact most of the early Kennedy family tree is not supported by citations in the articles (I explain what is and is not cited in the articles on the template talk page --if they were then I would have copied the citations over to the family tree). If you look at FAs that contain trees such as Charles II of England#Ancestry you will see that it is fully cited. If you look compare Henry Percy, 3rd Earl of Northumberland (April 2014) with Henry Percy, 3rd Earl of Northumberland (April 2015), like all text the second tree can be trusted to be reliable in a way that the first one can not because the reader can easily check the sources. Over the last couple of hours I have been adding citations to Template:Houston family tree, before and after, which tree will be more useful for readers? Which sections of the tree are more likely to be correct? A trick question because unless you are an expert on the Houston family you can not know if the sections without citations are correct without a lot more research.

As for non-fiction family trees and fiction ones, I do not see any difference with a family tree for Thor (at the moment there is just a navigation template Template:Norse paganism topics, but if it is turned into a family tree of Norse gods ...) and Thor (Marvel Comics) Template:Thor family tree (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) other than it is usually it is a dam sight easier to source trees about fictional characters. But for readers the affect is the same, for non-fiction and fiction, family trees with citations are more trustworthy than those without. -- PBS (talk) 19:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, you're convincing me; I often use FA articles to prove a point and it looks like you've given me a taste of my own medicine. I'm actually big on citations (I will add three where one would suffice) but something about this felt wrong, probably because I tend to use trees as much for navigation as I do "standard" navboxes. But you make a very good point (among others) that by definition the tree presents information above and beyond what the equivalent navbox would. So I can get on board.— TAnthony^Talk 21:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I reverted the changes made to Wolek family, Buchanan family, Riley family, Lord family and Cramer family. They are related to this discussion. Two other things of note: 1) One doesn't usually redirect a template page to an article. The template page should be deleted. 2) In alot of cases, usually more complex the template, one doesn't simply copy the template into the article. The template contains "template programming" that isn't necessary in the article. The family templates contained if, switch and program variables. Program variables are those with three brackets, ie {{{width|100%}}}. Bgwhite (talk) 08:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

First of all I kind of figured this discussion was over since no one else was chiming in. But I never included the OLTL trees in my responses to PBS because I had not realized that they were only in use in the family articles until he/she pointed that out. I'm very familiar with the editor who created them and OLTL-related articles and was being bold because, frankly, they don't need to be standalone templates. I really don't think that has anything to do with any ongoing discussion on family tree formats or referencing.— TAnthony^Talk 12:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I only saw these articles later because you edited these pages a few hours before you last message in this discussion. As PBS stated, he sees no difference in non-fiction and fiction family trees. He mentions one of these trees above ("why translucence templates such as Template:Buchanan family tree exist...) Fiction family trees were mentioned above. All the trees mentioned above were also stand-alone templates. Just because you didn't mention them doesn't make these trees different or not related to the discussion. I think, but not sure, that from PBS' question above he also doesn't see putting the templates into the articles as a good idea.

My main reason for the message was to point out how you did it wrong... Templates should not be redirected to articles and you left in template programming in the article. Bgwhite (talk) 21:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes I tagged the category for deletion but redirected the actual templates because I thought perhaps their creator, FrickFrack (who is not super active lately), might appear and have some justification for recreating them. Thank you though, I was indeed sloppy in that I ignored the template programming, I should have noticed that.

I sort of misspoke above: I do now agree that these OLTL trees should be cited, and my next step after moving them into the articles was to cite the The Soap Opera Encyclopedia, which I have readily available. But I interpreted from PBS' comments asking "why they exist" that he believed they should not be standalone templates. I agree, as I hadn't realized until then that they we each only used in one article. To that end I was being bold and merging them.

As far as the discussion itself, I was challenging PBS and now I'm not, so assuming I either tag the trees as unreferenced or reference them, the discussion is over and I'm cooperating no matter where I put them. Right? — TAnthony^Talk 21:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Sooo, I'm not really sure why you reverted everything rather than just clean up the template programming, but if you really love them as standalone templates I don't care enough to argue about it.— TAnthony^Talk 22:06, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes I do think that if there is only one use of the template the content should be moved into article space. The problem we have Bgwhite is that we can not simply copy the content into article space and delete the template with its history as that would breach Wikiepdia copyright restrictions. Usually the way that two articles are merged is go copy the text across and then leave a redirect behind. The reason for leaving a redirect behind is in part to satisfy Wikipedia copyright restrictions (see WP:RUD). So how do you suggest that we tackle that problem, if "Templates should not be redirected to articles"? -- PBS (talk) 22:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Whether to put the template in the article or let be stand alone, I leave that decision to you. You know more about this than I do and defer to your judgement.

You are correct about the copyright reasons. However you and TAnthony didn't do one crucial step to satisfy copyright, you didn't give attribution. In the edit summary of the destination article, it needs to have that it was merged from [[Template:Foo]]. Otherwise, it is not known where to find the past edit history.

What I've seen done was to do a history merge. This was a few year ago when I tried copying a template into an article and got my hand slapped. Best to ask at the technical pump or wherever... as soon as you have one rule down, two more have been changed around here.

When TAnthony does copy the template over, tell me and I can get rid off all the template programming crap. Then you know what to remove from the rest of the copied templates. Bgwhite (talk) 22:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I have redone the Buchanan family tree as an example using {{chart top}} in place of the template header. We can use this as a working example for this discussion. -- PBS (talk) 22:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Ooops, I started writing the above before you posted this. Looks perfect, but the attribution is not in the edit history. Bgwhite (talk) 22:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@PBS:, would {{chart top}} help with the display issue at List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters#House Stark where the Template:Family tree of Rickard Stark is being pushed past the image? I'm not sure how to test/implement it with the current template language. — TAnthony^Talk 23:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you still want me to look at List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters#House Stark as it does not seem to be a problem to me? If you still think it is, then try placing the shield on the left and setting the width of the tree's box to about width=70% -- PBS (talk) 01:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

If you look at List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters#House Arryn and List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters#House Lannister, there is a little too much space (at least the way I'm viewing the page) because there is not a lot of opening text. But it's not a huge deal. I just thought, if {{chart top}} would close the gap with all else being the same, then great. Otherwise it's fine, and I don't want to move the images (I already reduced their size a bit). Thanks, — TAnthony^Talk 02:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

See List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters#House Arryn. As a temporary measure I have wrapped the template {{chart top}} around the template containing the tree, it and it appear to work just fine set to a width of 70%. You have several choices. You can copy the tree to the article location and then change the links to link to that section. Or you could modify the template to use {{chart top}} the problem with that is you lose the ability to edit it from within the article. Or there my be another solution which I am not able to see at the moment. -- PBS (talk) 03:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

OK thanks I'll take a look.— TAnthony^Talk 14:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Please have a look at this edit Template:Chart/start/doc and Template:chart/doc now documents a recent change to chart/start that allows you to pass "center" in as a parameter. This does away with the need for the now deprecated <center> that some user who like to keep up to date with technical changes loose sleep over its use with these templates. -- PBS (talk) 01:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes thanks, I noticed your edit and made the change in the other templates in the same category as the one you updated.— TAnthony^Talk 02:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@Bgwhite I have re-copied the content of Template:Lord family tree into the Lord family, and attributed the copy. I have used a soft link in the template. I understand why you thought a hard link was not appropriate, so I am hoping that we can have the same affect of keeping the history intact in the template while allowing the text to be in the article. Is that acceptable for you? -- PBS (talk) 02:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

PBS Yes, look good. Bgwhite (talk) 22:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Erika Slezak page

Dear TAnthony, On May 1, I tried to edit/remove the following data: 'She later played Nick O'Malley's mother in a 2001 episode the TV series Special Unit 2 (Episode: "The Years").' Bold text

In looking at the history and if I'm understanding it correctly, the entry I removed is still there with TAnthony associated with it. As I am new to editing on Wikipedia, am I doing this correctly?

I am the webmaster of erikaslezak.com as well as Ms. Slezak's fan club president. I recently asked Erika to review her wikipedia page and she requested that this entry be removed. Ms. Slezak has never appeared on the TV series Special Unit 2. Please contact me with any questions: wmjr555@hotmail.com. Sincerely, Walter MillerWmjr555 (talk) 14:56, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey there. At the time, I reverted your removal because you didn't explain in the edit summary why you were doing it. I've removed it again just now per your objection to the material. Normally an editor saying "I know this for a fact" isn't considered a reliable source, but the information itself isn't cited with a reliable source, and we have to be especially diligent with biographical articles for living people that everything is cited.— TAnthony^Talk 15:35, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

By the way, several online sources, including Soap Opera Digest, credit Erika with a role on the show, so I watched a clip of the episode on YouTube. The character wakes from a coma at the very end of the episode, and though there may be a slight resemblance, it is definitely not Erika. You may want to look into removing the credit from IMDb (not a reliable source for Wikipedia but still a much-referenced website) and other places.— TAnthony^Talk 15:46, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Stop posting on my talk page?

Could you please stop with the posting on my talk page, especially with the long posts that I have no intention of reading, because frankly, I am not that interested in knowing what is written in it (I would have read it if it was shorter). Would have answered to you on my talk page, but well - I can't. Either way, don't worry, you're not going to see me on 'Wayward Pines' etc. again. One more thing, if you are planning to answer, answer here because it is very annoying that people are posting on my own talk page, when I can't write there. 2001:41D0:2:37CE:59B6:BAF2:29A9:1F3E (talk) 19:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

You should not be editing while you are blocked, whether with another username or anonymously. Not reading my comments because they are too long? Well that explains why you don't seem to know much about policies, they are too long for you to read? Hopefully you know why you were blocked and have learned from it, but I'm now having my doubts.— TAnthony^Talk 19:08, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I honestly don't care if they ban this IP and I am really not trying to be anonymous or anything. You posted, I answered (I can't on my talk page because it is semi-protected). I have read policies, I know a lot about them. It's "too long to read" because I don't really feel like reading a half of page about/because of a single name of an editor and also, I just know that I would have a lot to comment on and I really don't feel like it. I know why I was blocked, what bothers me is that I can find at least three thing in that report that are false, made up, but nobody even cares about that. It also bothers me that I was not notified about being reported, so I couldn't even comment on it - basically punishment without giving a chance to explain yourself - it's like they do it in North Korea. But you have nothing to do with that report so there is no point in comlaining here about it. Anyhow, I got the point, but I also realized how people on Wikipedia work and what are they like (and I am really not implicating you here) and I just don't want to be a part of it. And it's not about being in any way offended or anything remotely similar, because I'm really not.

And just for future reference - if you find source unreliable, only source, not the content - you should use the "citation needed" tag, not delete the information as a whole.

BTW, I read what you had written on my talk page before I posted this second post and I could comment quite a few things, but I just really don't feel like it, because it is irrelevant now anyway. 2001:41D0:8:BB58:0:0:0:0 (talk) 19:37, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion that needs answers.

I would like your opinion on this here please. Thank you. Jester66 (talk) 03:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

American films

See the hatnote at the top of Category:American films. WikiProject Film requests that articles be in the parent category as well as in the subcategories. I don't know how long the rule's been in force, but it's been a good while...several years at least. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:41, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks I didn't know that ... but I have a problem with a WikiProject going against WP:CAT, primarily because that policy is there for a reason, and also because editors like you trying to implement this are going to be continually opposed and reverted. Silly.— TAnthony^Talk 14:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

But thanks again for pointing that out, I'm going to look into it! — TAnthony^Talk 14:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Any time. If I'm missing something, please do let me know, but I'm pretty sure the rule is still in force...I asked about it a few months ago and have seen nothing indicating a change since.

I tend to be of two minds about it myself...but since it's in place I figure it should be honored as far as possible, for consistency's sake. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:48, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

who put my picture on my uncle's page a month ago

My pix was posted as. Sincerely, Frank Pacelli — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.26.181.161 (talk) 00:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

FYI navbox redirects

Regards this change, I have a little bit of CSS that makes it obvious that a redirect is present in a navbox/sidebar/some hat templates (unfortunate in the last case but I think it serves the purpose).

.navbox .mw-redirect, .vertical-navbox .mw-redirect { font-style: italic; color: red; }

That's how I so quickly noted your inclusion of a redirect. You can of course change the color, but I find the use of the color red makes the inclusion particularly obvious. The italics helps distinguish (above the use of the color) between red links and redirect links. Now if only anchor links emitted a class or something else easily manipulated by CSS... --Izno (talk) 23:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Great thanks I've added this to my vector file.— TAnthony^Talk 23:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Dude that is VERY cool! Thx again.— TAnthony^Talk 02:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Added citations to accusation of Tyler's "plagiarism" from Dune Encyclopedia

Okay, I concede that my citation did have problems. However, Tyler seems to have removed his claim from his blog (the link currently cited encounters a 404 Error) and so, I'm going to remove this from the page; hope that's fine.

On a related note, what is the procedure on Wikipedia for dubious claims made by reliable sources, (Is Brian Tyler's webpage reliable? Unbiased?) which can be easily seen to be false, but require "original research"? Do we say, "Statement X is true" or "Person Y claims that statement X is true"? I think the former should NOT be used, but will gladly hear any arguments you might have for it.

Shankarsivarajan (talk) 05:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm gong to comment on this as the CoD article.— TAnthony^Talk 14:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Organizations in A Song of Ice and Fire

Would you be interested in helping me expand this article, I've added about 25 sources. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 22:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC: red links in navboxes

Would you accept a revised red link guideline that required a minimum of three blue links to existing stand-alone articles or lists, with at least 50% of all included links being blue, coupled with the clarification of the "succession" and "complete set" exceptions? Personally, I think that would be an extremely reasonable compromise, and if I can get 10 committed supporters, I'm ready to start lobbying previous !voters (not a violation of WP:CANVASS). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Passions

Who is to say that only Main/contract cast members shall be listed in the show? I don't see any rule about that except from your personal opinion. And where shall we draw the line? The most reasonable thng is to list everyone who has appeared in the show as the normal procedure is in the other shows that lists deceased cast members no matter how big or small the role was DrKilleMoff (talk) 18:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi I appreciate your discussing this. There are plenty of guidelines and policies in place regarding this kind of trivia. The fact that other shows may list deceased cast members that were in a single episode does not mean anything, as we both know soap-related articles are plagued with trivia that does not belong. This negatively impacts article quality. Specifically in this case, both Holly Lewis and her character are not notable enough within the context of the series to be mentioned elsewhere, and her death had no relation to the series. I've resisted challenging Lewis' own article via AfD on notability grounds. I think it's silly to list deceased actors at all because eventually, every single cast member already listed will be dead. There is a huge list of deceased cast at General Hospital cast members for example (and probably not even complete), and I don't see the value of this at all. It's just this kind of thing that seems interesting to soap fans but gets targeted when an article is being assessed for Good status or similar. I'm a longtime editor with WP:SOAPS and lists like this have been argued about forever, though I suppose they're less objectionable when they are in a self-contained list like my GH example. Listing non-notable day players in the main article, dead or otherwise, is silly. I'm not the boss though, so I'm fine if you'd like to open this up for discussion at Talk:Passions and/or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas. Thanks! — TAnthony^Talk 19:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok. I understand your point of view. But what do you think about this solution then? To create an own article for cast members list like GH and the other shows that will be linked from the main article? In that way the main article won't be affected but we can still note the minor roles in the list. DrKilleMoff (talk) 21:10, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Well both List of Passions characters and List of Passions cast members currently exist, though the Cast list looks pretty basic. I think it would actually be an improvement to leave only contract cast and perhaps notable guest stars in the main article, then move Recurring and Deceased to the Cast members page (along with copies of Contract and Guest stars). HOWEVER, I still don't see that point of listing Lewis ANYWHERE. First I should note that I haven't seen a source besides IMDb of her character's name, and the obit just mentions the show. But assuming she did play this character for an episode or two ... she is no more notable than any other of the thousands of day players who appeared on the show as judges and waiters and detectives and doctors over its 8 years. She died, yes, but 8 years after she appeared on the show ... and her appearance isn't even noted in her own article yet, by the way. Passions is notable on her page, but she isn't notable on any Passions pages. Unless we can establish that she had some significant contribution to a story or something perhaps.— TAnthony^Talk 22:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, from what I can read of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Soap_Operas even less or non notable characters can be included in a list article for the show. By this sentence "Thus, an article should be created about a soap opera character only if the character is notable within the series and has been the subject of third-party discussions. Otherwise, the character should simply be included in a "List of characters" for that particular program." If we do as you suggested, move deceased and recurring, then non-fans can focus on the notable information of the show and those who would like to immerse themselves in the, let's say less important information can do that in a seperate article. I think that's a fair compromise and then we can include Lewis and other guest stars that's not notable in any other section of the show. DrKilleMoff (talk) 00:29, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Are you a friend of Holly Lewis? LOL. I don't know that I've seen a lot of one-episode appearances put on a cast list. A scary long list of just about everyone who has ever been on the show already exists at IMDb, and there's a reason we include external links rather than duplicate those exhaustive lists here in full. But obviously you really want to put her down on the Cast list so have fun. — TAnthony^Talk 00:44, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:LGBT web series

Template:LGBT web series has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. torri²(^talk/_contribs) 21:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

List of works published by Valancourt Books

I wasn't aware a complete publisher's bibliography was against Wiki rules. I was simply mimicking pages of other publishing houses (Arkham House, as a single example). Glen arvon (talk) 16:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes I think no one has noticed Arkham House or others yet, but I have certainly seen other such lists greatly reduced or deleted per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The basic rationale is that these lists are potentially endless and push the boundaries of notability, to say nothing of being possibly self-promoting for the publisher. Like I said, I'm not going to make a case about this one myself, but I didn't want you to put in a lot of work maintaining the list and be surprised when it is challenged and deleted.— TAnthony^Talk 17:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:1970s US miniseries

Template:1970s US miniseries has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Rob Sinden (talk) 10:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:1980s US miniseries

Template:1980s US miniseries has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Rob Sinden (talk) 10:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:1990s US miniseries

Template:1990s US miniseries has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Rob Sinden (talk) 10:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Most Popular Girls in School, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Q&A. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Miniseries templates

I hope they get to stay, these templates give an excellent overview of what the viewers of a decade were either interested in or served outright. Nice work. If they "survive" the process it would be nice to see similar treatments for the 2000s and 2010s (have you worked on those as yet?). Best of luck with these. Randy Kryn 13:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I thought they would be useful too, but they will definitely be deleted. In any case, I took the suggestion and created decade subcategories for Category:American television miniseries and used AWB to recategorize the articles. I left four in the main American miniseries category, one from the 40s, one from the 50s and two from the 60s (there should not be separate categories for one or two items).— TAnthony^Talk 17:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

They shouldn't be deleted. All the pro-deletion editors are saying is that they should be categories, which implies that the vision of one editor prevails when actually the use of templates and categories are two different things, something not everyone takes into account when labeling things like this. The templates serve a very good purpose. There are discussion about templates which seem to fall into two different opinions - deletion or expansion - and every discussion on that makes it more obvious. These templates are good, useful, and attract the eyes of people like me, and I hope you continue to discuss them on the talk page (I'll give it another go as well later). Thanks. Randy Kryn 18:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Lord Edgware Dies, cover illustration no longer shows in article since image parameter updated

I noticed that the cover image no longer appears for Lord Edgware Dies by Agatha Christie. Something must be wrong with the file name, but I cannot see what the problem is to fix it. There is an image at the link, but no image showing in the infobox. Maybe you can see the problem? --Prairieplant (talk) 11:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Lots, but not all, the articles I have looked at in the last hour have images that do not appear. Others do appear as usual. Perhaps this is an issue of larger scope than one article. --Prairieplant (talk) 11:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@Prairieplant:, the image displays fine for me, perhaps there was a stewed issue previously, or you're having a temporary browser issue?— TAnthony^Talk 12:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Now all the infobox images show up fine. As it was rather randomly selected images that did not show, I did not think it was firefox on my computer. It would have blocked all or none, right? Well, the problem, whatever it was, is cleared up now. Sorry for the bother. --Prairieplant (talk) 23:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Robert III of Artois, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Domfront. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Neutral notice

This is a neutral notice that a dormant discussion with which you were involved at Help talk:Citation Style 1 has been revived. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Condescending

You were right. I actually happen to be in the habit of making condescending edits like this to editors who use WP:AWB in ways that the instructions clearly tell you not to use them. See rule number 4. Debresser (talk) 22:31, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

If you actually took the time to look, I was doing a series of edits exactly as described in my edit summary, but another editor had already made the change manually in that particular article (in the previous edit) and I didn't notice. I appreciate your need to scold everyone who makes a mistake, but other experienced editors honestly don't need you formally notifying us of the obvious.— TAnthony^Talk 22:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

AWB guidelines clearly say you have the responsibility for every semi-automated edit you make. Please take that responsibility serious. And I do apologize for being condescending. It is one of my worse character traits. Debresser (talk) 01:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

1. Dude. I know the AWB rules.
2. I'm sorry that in my haste I ended up making an unnecessary edit, and I take full responsibility should the very foundation and structure of Wikipedia come crashing down around us because of it.
3. The use of "USA" is deprecated per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#US and U.S. so it wasn't actually a "rather useless" edit.
4. We're done here.

— TAnthony^Talk 03:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Game of Thrones characters

Hi. I have seen your great work on articles related to Game of Thrones including characters like Tyrion Lannister and Jon Snow. Most of the articles related to Game of Thrones are well written and sourced but actually some of articles about its characters really need improvement such as Catelyn Stark, Sansa Stark, Arya Stark, Cersei Lannister, Jaime Lannister, Davos Seaworth and Petyr Baelish. I think you have enough knowledge about this show (or maybe book series) to change these articles' material and improve them. Please do it every time you can. Thank you. Keivan.f^Talk 09:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I've collected research to improve several character GoT articles but it's a time consuming challenge and I haven't been able to commit myself to it! I think Daenerys is next through.— TAnthony^Talk 14:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, time is always a problem. I have also found information for different articles but I can't use them as I come to Wikipedia once or twice a week and I don't have time for editing articles because I'm studying for university enterance exams. So I understand what you say, but I'm also happy to hear that you have collected research to improve those articles. And I think you have made a good choice for your next work, Daenerys I mean. Keivan.f^Talk 19:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Also except the articles about the major characters, I think List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters which also include information about minor characters needs to get expanded and more sources are needed for it, for example most of the family trees are unsourced. World of A Song of Ice and Fire and List of Game of Thrones characters (which is for the TV series) also need improvement. I'll try to change the material of these articles and improve them in the future but I'm afraid that I can't do it alone. I hope you also participate in this progress by continuing your researches for finding more sources and information. Thanks again. :) Keivan.f^Talk 10:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

THE HOUSE ON THE BORDERLAND AND OTHER NOVELS (ARKHAM HOUSE BOOK)

How can the name of the writer of the Introduction, H. C. Koenig, be linked to the Wikipedia entry covering Koenig? 108.5.35.63 (talk) 19:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I can't seem to find a Wikipedia article for H. C. Koenig.— TAnthony^Talk 20:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for creating the Anacostia wiki page! It's greatly appreciated.

V/r Wil Lash (William Lash aka Onix) Actor / Producer - Anacostia

No problem. Let me know if you ever have any reliable web sources with good info to add to the article.— TAnthony^Talk 20:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I've never actually seen it so I'm not equipped to add plot info either ;) — TAnthony^Talk 20:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Lotus eaters

Hi there. Thank you for your reviews on wiki. I just read The Lotus Eaters. Wondering if I might help you with the many spelling and grammatical errors in it? Could do this privately and you just update it. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.11.234 (talk) 20:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Which article at Lotus-eaters (disambiguation) are you talking about, The Lotus Eaters (novel)? — TAnthony^Talk 20:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes the novel by Soli.. sorry this is the first time I've been on wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Designeyecandy (talk • contribs) 20:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

For e.g. the second definition down if you google "define smooted" :'( It's okay... you would have been in a hurry when you wrote it. Thought you may have been from Asia. Good article otherwise!

I didn't actually write the article or read the book, I just made a small template fix recently. I just now cleaned up the plot summary and will also do the same for the character list. If you'd like to suggest some text, you can type it up here or at User:TAnthony/Drafts. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 20:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh I'm terribly sorry of course you didn't (you did say you were keen on grammar!). Looks great now. Still too new to this. Thanks for being patient with me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Designeyecandy (talk • contribs) 23:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Our Sons

You forgot the Ann-Margret Julie Andrews vehicle Our Sons. As a long term survivor I remember this film was ahead of its time — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.52.88.241 (talk) 22:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

When you say "I forgot", what do you mean?— TAnthony^Talk 23:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Advise and Consent

Hey, there:

I see you did a lot of work on Advise and Consent. I am Al's nephew and had an old interview that could be referenced, so I filled in some details. But the page was very nice;all I had to do was add.How did you get interested in Al's work?

Oh, I see, you were editing. The section on characters in Advise and Consent is in the new edition so I just need to find the pages.

Kenneth Killiany Amindthatsuits (talk) 18:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi nice to meet you, I read Advise and Consent years ago and did some work more recently on the Allen Drury and Advise and Consent articles because they were a mess haha.— TAnthony^Talk 19:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Targaryens

Hello. I realized that you have reverted my edits on Family tree of House Targaryen and Template:Family tree of Maekar Targaryen. Actually I didn't want an edit war so I came here to solve this minor problem by discussion. It seems that you and I have different opinions on whether to keep son of Daenerys's name or not. As I said before, as Daenerys is a female member, her children cannot be considered Targaryens. The names of so many Targaryen princesses's children are not included in that family tree. Daenerys shouldn't be an exception. All other family trees are also like this. Except House Arryn which I now think that you were right about it and names of descendants in female line should be kept, as the male line has come to an end and the next heir is from the female line according to the books. Also I know these are all fictional family trees and we shouldn't be so serious about them, but I just want this part to be similar with the other ones. Keivan.f^Talk 19:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, I was going to comment on the Targaryen tree talk page at some point. I see where you're coming from as far as Rhaego not being a Targaryen, but this seems like an exception-worthy add considering that Daenerys is a current, active character (unlike 99% of the others noted), and as there is not (and shouldn't be) a separate Drogo tree, there is no other chart on which to note that she had a child. As far as I'm concerned, generations of characters only mentioned in passing are crufty, but characters actually appearing in novels and stories are notable. Now it's not a huge deal either way considering that Rhaego is a small plot point that will never have his own article, but if you don't agree I do think it is worthy of wider discussion. Thanks! — TAnthony^Talk 22:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Actually I agree with you in some ways. Daenerys is the last confirmed member of her family and the most important one in the novels. So it can be an exception-worthy add as you said and it's fair to show that once she had a child. Although I don't agree to keep his name in any of those family trees because of his unimportant appearance (and for the other reasons that I mentioned above), I think as a solution we can remove his name from extended Targaryen family tree (as he's not a Targaryen) and keep it in family tree of Maekar as Rhaego is one of his descendants. Keivan.f^Talk 07:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Also if you agree or disagree with what I said above, please let me know. Keivan.f^Talk 14:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC)