User talk:Zythe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Forever Charmed 2 Torchwood 3 Liam Fitzpatrick (Suite Life) 4 Doomsday 5 Reality shifts POV 6 Pansexuality - Princess Clara 7 Eletrokinesis 8 Krypto 9 Big Bads 10 LIVING 11 Whoniverse

[edit] Forever Charmed

Why ddi you move Forever Charmed (Charmed Episode) to just Forever charmed? Would've the title have been better with the (charmed ep) part? Malevious 15:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Not really, the "Name {disambuation)" format should only be applied to articles where there are other uses of the name. For example, Doomsday (Doctor Who) compared with The Christmas Invasion.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Torchwood

What about the alien in Day One?--SGCommand (talk • contribs) 14:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps create List of Torchwood monsters and aliens and add it (shame it has no name, how about "Sex alien" as a description) along with the weevils?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 14:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Liam Fitzpatrick (Suite Life)

I noticed you were the one who moved Liam Fitzpatrick to Liam Fitzpatrick (Suite Life), I think it should be moved to Liam Fitzpatrick (Suite Life of Zack and Cody) or something similar, because of Suite Life alone being to vauge and not the correct title of the show. What is your opinion? Malevious 02:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Doomsday

Just to clarify why I reverted in case you missed it in the article history. We should try (insofar as the new series are concerned) to avoid references to "future" stories which are spoilery. The rationale is this: people who read down expect spoilers for the episode they are reading about; they may not want to be spoiled about episodes they haven't yet seen. We've been generally okay with the classic Doctor Who stuff because those are really old episodes but for the new series on (which includes Torchwood), we should keep in mind that not everyone has seen these at the same time. So, back references are okay, but forward references should be done in a non-spoiler way. Thanks. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 03:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reality shifts POV

Hi, Zythe! Thanks for joining the discussion on the reality shifts page. I welcome a balanced POV for the topic, particularly regarding areas you view to be potentially slanted, such as coincidences being just that. Cynthia Sue Larson 22:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It would seem that it is an article based on / connected to your website? My main problem with it is that it described reality shifts as factual things, much like the article on say, a tree would. The article should really explain that reality shifts are unproven, and very unscientific. It also very much comes across as a vanity page with insufficient referencing (inline references are best). I understand you're a metaphysics researcher? I do not doubt your qualification to write the article, and I would probably believe it a subject you may have personally helped to make prominent, notable, even invent. I'll look over it some more tomorrow when I'm less tired, but I think it could do with some work. Respectfully, ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC).

Thank you; I greatly appreciate your assistance in creating an objective page for this topic. My interest in this topic is due to a large number of personal experiences with it, as well as surveys with people who report having also encountered reality shifts. I agree that more varied and more extensive references will prove most helpful here. There are fictional examples of reality shifts which are not yet mentioned here, which should also provide a more balanced report on the subject. Cynthia Sue Larson 02:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

House of M would be a fictional example, right? ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 12:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pansexuality - Princess Clara

I don't think Clara was explicitly straight, either. After looking at her article, plus seeing the show myself, she does have homosexual moments with Foxxy. Disinclination 00:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll leave it at "female" then! :) ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Sexually ambiguous. Lol. Wait.. nevermind. I don't really know what ambiguous means. Curse the person who put that info in! Disinclination 00:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eletrokinesis

I've dug up WP:V and WP:RS uses of the term Eletrokinesis in science and as a science-fiction super power going back at least 10 years, and placed one of each on the -kinesis talk page a couple of days ago.

Based on what you've said, this entitles it to Wikistatus as a real world and verifiable fictional concept.

perfectblue 16:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Krypto

Gee, and I thought the "supercanine" line was cute[1] and keeping in tune with use of the word Superhuman when describing humanoid characters. Too bad you disagree. CovenantD 19:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Neologism? I feel superhuman describes it too, what with his ability to bend steel etc. But I can see where the problem lies in that and so just left it as "super".~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 20:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

...Damn. You're right. I started to put "superhuman" also, but went with an intra-species comparison instead. Shoulda gone with my first instinct. CovenantD 20:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Big Bads

No offense, but you might want to rethink this category before doing more work on it. All the time I see categories like this being added to fictional character articles, only to be removed via a WP:CFD. I believe Category:Dark Lords was one such category that was recently deleted. There are already other cats for "villains" and such, so I'm not sure what extra this is supposed to show. I understand that "Big Bad" is a major villain or foe, and not just any villain, but still. You have to ask yourself, will this really help anyone find an article, or is it just another possible category for the sake of categories? You also might want to check out the proposed guideline at Wikipedia:Overcategorization. -- Ned Scott 13:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LIVING

When you encounter an editor adding unsourced derogatory information about a living person, it's better to remove the information outright rather than to add a {fact} tag. Otherwise that info could sit in the article for weeks or longer. See WP:BLP. Cheers, -Will Beback · † · 20:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Whoniverse

I see you have edited out my paragraph on the Whoniverse thread. Its a bit rich editing out a paragraph discussing the issue of alien techonology given the fact that that is the entire rationale behind Torchwood. I will not edit the paragraph back in, as I respect your right to edit the same, but you don't really seem to show much appreciation of what Doctor Who entails. Technology is absolutely fundaemental to Torchwood and yet you presume to edit out a paragraph contextualizing Earths position in regard to the rest of the universe. If yo are seriously a Doctor Who fan rather than a mere vandal, I would have to say- why?Rob 23:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

They were poor edits. Comparison of Daleks to Time Lords, with misspellings, bad links and too much depth on Army of Ghosts and other specific bits of information. The fact is all "technology" on the show is portrayed as "advanced", comparison and contrast is WP:OR. The entire "features" thing is just to summarize the nature of the fictional universe, quickly rattling off main points. Everything mentioned in your paragraph at that point in the article would make no sense to non fans (at this stage in the article, what is Torchwood? What are Daleks?) and completely spoils the logical flow of the article from idea to idea (in your most recent edit, the flow from discussion of order to God's place in the Whoniverse). It's just a really, really bad paragraph that adds nothing to the article.

I'd like to think the current version is of a relatively high quality for a young article. Vandal? Thanks. Wikipedia:Assume good faith, yeah? Cheers for that. I'm going to remove them again, and if you choose to put them back, we'll let the rest of WP:WHO come to a conclusion. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Zythe- I should apologise if my last post appeared too confrontational. My only interest as a wikipedian is to get an accurate description of the Doctor Who universe in the article. With the utmost respect- as it stands, it is inadequate. I am more than happy to work with you to develop an article here. I like your work so far. If you are interested, let me know. Rob 00:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

That's okay. May I just add that I do not believe that addition is at all necessary - admin khaosworks (talk • contribs) had reverted it earlier. I think you may have broken WP:3RR. I think it's important to note that information regarding Torchwood's place in the universe and as opposed to a general one, belongs in Torchwood Institute which is adequately referred to later on as one of Earth's federal responses to the knowledge of an extraterrestrial presence. Similarly, specific information about the Daleks belongs in Dalek. :) ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Firstly- I don't claim to be an expert on Wikipedias three revert rule- if I get a slapped wrist, fine, I accept it with good grace. If you want to rework the general remarks about technology into a more generalized paragraph about the state of the universe then I am more than willing to accept that- I have been very impressed by your editing so far, and think you should be nominated for an admin in the near future. khaosoworks can do his stuff I'm sure I'll survive..... finally- how can one comprehend the Whovian universe without a reference to the dominant technological species? I am merely keen to try and describe in the article generally the state of the universe in the TV prog. I accept that more detailed information belongs in the specific articles but the previous article doesn't touch at all on Torchwoods raison'detre, which is the whole point of the series after all.....Rob 00:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not trying to be mean. Torchwood's raison d'être is totally irrelevant (and in fact, disputable in itself) to the article, actually. However, the Daleks themselves aren't. They are a very key feature of the universe, and should probably be mentioned in a paragraph detailing characterization of the universe or perhaps the well known and established factors. As khaosworks pointed out at Talk:Whoniverse, the article needs more grounding - trivia does the opposite. I myself am probably not as big a Doctor Who fan as yourself - only watched since The Christmas Invasion, but I do enjoy writing and can be quite nitpicky when it comes to flow and cohesive techniques employed. Perhaps an entire new section after features should be "Characterisation", explaining common themes across the Doctor Who chronology. Dunno. Don't put it in yet. I think this article could even be a good article if we're really good. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

This is an interesting point, and I appreciate we have a difference of opinion here. Clearly the purpose of the article is to describe the fictional universe in which Doctor Who stories, plus spin offs are set. The possession of technology for me is the major backdrop for the large majority of the stories (indeed even the historicals have the Tardis present) and the possession of technology permits various races to destroy, dominate, conquer, or intervene or not. However, I take your point that it may well be better off being worked into a seperate section- once the "natural" aspects of the Whoniverse have been described then perhaps a separate section should be added as you mentioned. I would though suggest that a slightly more explicit reference to the Time War be added in the article, as you explain that they used to be able to travel but not why they became extinct- any non-fan would need at least a slight explanation of the historical backdrop. Rob 12:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)