User talk:Woodensuperman/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Woodensuperman. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi Robsinden. I saw your note in your last edit summary. I just wanted to let you know that Amazon has been used as a reliable source for the DVD releases for quite some time. If you check it is currently being used for several of the titles in the list. If you feel that it shouldn't be I would suggest that you bring it up at the wikiproject for Doctor Who talk page. Of course, you can bring it up at the talk page for the article but I think you will get a wider feedback at the projects talk page. This is just a suggestion and I would say that you should proceed as you wish. Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 18:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi I wrote the Meglos source on the discussion page and didn't mess with the footnotes on the article page as I don't know how to do that. So if you want to check it out and put it back if it's considered an acceptable source please do so (www.devoted.com.au). It's near the bottom in the Region 1 and 4 releases from 2011 section. If you see an update by me I'll put it there unless I learn the footnote system (although generally just try Ezy DVD, JB Hi-Fi or Devoted in Australia as that's my likely sources). -Angeloz 123.2.138.148 (talk) 15:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi again I edited it once more with a footnote this time but am really uncertain if it was done properly. -Angeloz 123.2.138.148 (talk) 16:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure your edits are the "correct" way to do this? Would you please point me in the direction of a WP that explains this? Thank you. Geeky Randy (talk) 19:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello - The columns that indicated that the characters were mentioned in other films were spanning all the remaining films in the series, rather than the individual films, so all i did was fix the spanning issue, also separating the Scream 4 column as at this stage we don't know whether these people will or won't appear. The List of Harry Potter cast members is a good example. Rob Sinden (talk) 08:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I just wanted to make sure it was the more appropriate option. Geeky Randy (talk) 21:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I've just seen your recent edits to the Music Inspired by Lord of the Rings article and your assertion that Swedish titles only capitalise proper nouns. It’s interesting that you've chosen to do this because it had also occurred to me that the capitalisation may be incorrect, so I checked with the Swedish Wikipedia. The album's corresponding Swedish-language article capitalises its title as Sagan om Ringen (see here). I was just about to change the capitalisation on the English-language Wikipedia myself when I saw that you'd already done it, although in a slightly different way (great minds think alike). Now, I'm no expert on Swedish, and I assume that you know more than I do about this kind of thing, but surely if the Swedish Wikipedia capitalises the album as Sagan om Ringen, then that is probably the correct way, wouldn't you say? --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 14:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I'm no expert either, but I'm pretty sure that my usage is right (look at [1] for all the other case where the "R" isn't capitalised). I'm wondering if there is some reason that there's a special case with the album only, or whether the Swedish Wikipedia is wrong? Rob Sinden (talk) 15:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh OK, we'll leave it as is then – you’re probably right anyway. Can I ask why you've moved the article to Music Inspired by Lord of the Rings (Bo Hansson album)? There is only one album with this title on Wikipedia (the Mostly Autumn album title is subtly different - Music Inspired by THE Lord of the Rings). Therefore under Wikipedia naming conventions as outlined at WP:MUSTARD there's no need to specify the artist in the article title - editors should not disambiguate unless necessary (see the Disambiguation section of WP:MUSTARD). I suggest either reverting the move and leaving the album article where it was or relocating it to the Music Inspired by Lord of the Rings disambiguation page (although I do think that the disambiguation page is useful as it is). --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 08:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I agree with you totally that the Bo Hansson album should be under Music Inspired by Lord of the Rings and the Mostly Autumn album should be under Music Inspired by The Lord of the Rings (where it was) as they do have distinct titles. However, I tried to move Music Inspired by Lord of the Rings (album) to Music Inspired by Lord of the Rings as I thought the disambiguation page unnecessary and that the hats were sufficient, but this was challenged, stating that it was a useful disambiguation page. As the "(album)" on the end does not disambiguate between the two albums, both this, and "Music Inspired by The Lord of the Rings" should, by the same logic, also be disambiguation pages. Thus in order to do this I moved the Bo Hansson album to Music Inspired by Lord of the Rings (Bo Hansson album) and the Mostly Autumn album to Music Inspired by The Lord of the Rings (Mostly Autumn album), so that all disambiguation pages were fair. If you are thinking of moving these back to Music Inspired by Lord of the Rings and Music Inspired by The Lord of the Rings, I'd support this 100%, but not a move to Music Inspired by Lord of the Rings (album). Hope I've explained my reasoning okay :) Rob Sinden (talk) 09:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, although I do sort of feel that the article belongs at Music Inspired by Lord of the Rings, I can also see that having that as a disambiguation page is useful because the album titles are so similar. However, I'm not really understanding your problem with simply having it at located at Music Inspired by Lord of the Rings (album). There is no need to mention Bo Hansson in the title to disambiguate further because there is only one album called Music Inspired by Lord of the Rings on Wikipedia. The mention of Bo Hansson is totally superfluous...especially when we already have a disambiguation page to differentiate between the two similarly named albums. I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding what you're saying here but as far as I can see, if the article isn't located at Music Inspired by Lord of the Rings then it should definitely be at Music Inspired by Lord of the Rings (album) as per the manual of style for popular music. By the way, I'd like to get this sorted out as soon as possible because the article will shortly be appearing in the Did you know... section of the front page and I'd like the correct link to used in DYK section, rather than using a redirect. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 13:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi again! As far as the disambiguation goes (and this is why I think disambiguation is unnecessary), it is to disambiguate between two articles which would have the same title. Usually, you would add "(album)" to disambiguate between an album and something else, but when what you are disambiguating against is also an album, you then need to disambiguate further (i.e. Reckoning (R.E.M. album)/Reckoning (Grateful Dead album)). The unique difficulty here is that although the albums have similar titles, they are not identical. However, to my mind, if we are disambiguating, we need to treat the two articles as if they do have identical titles, otherwise there's no point of disambiguating.

Which brings us back round to whether we should disambiguate. Personally (as I believe I've said) and I think you're edging towards the same thought, I don't think we need to - maybe we should requested move it to see what others think? Whatever happens, I think that the two albums should be treated the same. I don't think it was fair that the Mostly Autumn album was sitting at the root Music Inspired by The Lord of the Rings, where as the Bo Hansson album had to occupy a disambiguated page, with its root title a disambiguation. Hmm - messy sentence, but I'm sure you'll agree!

Should we transclude this exchange on the relevant talk page too?

And... I've just realised that I didn't congratulate you on the article. And thanks for being one of the most civil editors I've come across :) Rob Sinden (talk) 13:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that this is an unusual case because the two album titles are very similar but not identical. I think you make a valid point that if we've decided to retain a disambiguation page for both albums then we should treat them as if they do have the same title. As I've said, I can see the usefulness of having the disambiguation page because people could potentially type in "Music Inspired by Lord of the Rings" for either album, so perhaps we should leave the disambiguation page as it is. On reflection, I agree that using a (Bo Hansson album) suffix is probably the best course of action. As an aside, I was thinking of creating a couple of redirect pages for the Bo Hansson album at Lord of the Rings (album) and The Lord of the Rings (album) because it is often referred to by this title and in fact, some of CD reissues of the album actually bear this shortened title. What do you think?

Thank you for your kind words and compliments on the article—I couldn't believe that an album as well known as this one didn't already have a Wikipedia article and yet other, more obscure Bo Hansson albums did. So, I decided to rectify the situation immediately. Initially I only intended to create a fairly brief stub-class article but then I got a bit carried away and ended up writing loads! :-D Anyway, yes...let's transclude this discussion to any relevant talk pages. I'll leave it up to you to decide where it should be transcluded. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 15:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

TRANSCLUDED this (and replied) at Talk:Music Inspired by Lord of the Rings (Bo Hansson album). Rob Sinden (talk) 09:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the message and the help - appreciated. I have done an "articles for deletion" entry for Roger C. Field at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger C. Field. -Bruce Airproofing (talk) 13:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Is Scott Brown a Republican? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.46.199 (talk) 14:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

We have only three sourced sentences to consider, so how about a merge to Adaptations of The Wizard of Oz#Film adaptations? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds perfect to me! Rob Sinden (talk) 08:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Popsicle (band) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. — Timneu22 · talk 12:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Per The Avengers film project deletion discussion, an article is allowable about a planned film project as long as it had enough referenced material to justify an article and is not treated as a film article (no film infobox, film is said to be planned instead of upcoming, etc.)-5- (talk) 18:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:NFF is a guideline, but it's not a strict rule. Here's the Avengers film project deletion discussion for example. I'm going to ask that you please not revert it again.-5- (talk) 18:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

But it doesn't justify its own article - this "film project" is a new phenomenon, and there is no reason it should be covered on the film series page until it passes WP:NFF Rob Sinden (talk) 18:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Why doesn't it justify its own article? It has enough references and sourced information to become its own article. It's too large to just be a subsection of a film series article. NFF needs to be taken with a common sense approach.-5- (talk) 18:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't need its own article just yet - there's not enough information for it to need to be split from the main series page, and can easily fit on the series page. WP:NFF is a good guideline - it states "Until the start of principal photography, information on the film can be included in articles about its subject material. Sources must be used to confirm the start of principal photography after shooting has begun." Otherwise we'd have all sorts of "film project" pages out there for all sorts of sequels. Have AfD'd it - let's see what others think. Rob Sinden (talk) 18:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rob, thanks for your comments. I wanted to be sure you received my message back, so it's on my talk page. Basically though, I'd appreciate your advice given this is my first Wikipedia article. Thank you! PistachioGelato (talk) 14:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, now that Thorne is a disambiguation page, could you help re-direct links to an article per WP:FIXDABLINKS? Thanks, --JaGa^talk 23:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Woodensuperman. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.