User talk:Proteus71
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] No prob
Re the 3 Musketeers article. Films and books are my specialty. Cheers, Her Pegship 17:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Starting a separate Wiki with fewer restrictions on sources
I endorse your idea to have a separate Wiki for CCS and other things.
In general, I think Wikipediatrix has a point that such listings can be a magnet for lots of subjective fancruft. And that we really don't have a clearly enforceable defintion of CCS (Consider unexplained absences, like my favorite: Zara Cully from the third (or fourth?) season of The Jeffersons. The aging actress was sick in real life and continued to be in the credits as a regular. But, considering how frequently she was in the show in previous seasons, and how large a role her character played, it is extremely surprising that she isn't even mentioned all season until she returns, in a wheelchair, near the end of the season. How does that fit? It's too short to be Lazarus Cunningham).
But the first point can be dealt with by someone (or some people) watchlisting the article in question and aggressively making sure stuff is sourced or fits the definition, and the second ... well, if we went with my proposed name change we wouldn't necessarily be bound by some hard-and-fast rule but we could note all the nuances. I think 'atrix's opposition is to the very idea of this. But we don't refuse to run articles on undeniably notable things just because of the maintenance problems they would create (if so, we would have had no articles on high schools). I wish she'd say so.
And I really think her editing style merits an RFC at some point. She does the easy work of tagging but never hangs around to finish the job (I am beginning to think use of some of those maintenance templates should be restricted to admins), usually thinks her snotty edit summaries are sufficient to establish consensus and refuses to respond to complaints. Daniel Case 18:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Tenth Planet/War Games
It is really needed to be so "at the time" in the descriptions when talking about the first two regenerations - in this case the retronym would be far more familiar to readers even though it's an anachronism. PMA 05:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
