User talk:ConorM
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Image Tagging for Image:Gaelic_football_ball.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Gaelic_football_ball.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 16:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:GAA_Pitch_Positions.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:GAA_Pitch_Positions.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Donnie Davies
Just thought I'd let you know that I nominated the article for a deletion reversal which you can weigh in on here: WP:DRV Thanks! SquatGoblin 04:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- It looks like Donnie Davies has been moved to WP:AFD under February 2, 2007 if you have continuing interest in this subject. Thanks for all your participation thus far. You've been helpful. --SquatGoblin 14:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Trailer Park Boys
The episodes have no encyclopedic worth. There is no way for them to meet the guidelines, so it is impossible for them to exist. WP:EPISODE exists for a reason. If an episode article cannot meet its standards, it is unencyclopedic. If I am wrong in this assumption, and development and reception references do exist, provide them in the articles. They will have reason to exist if that happens. I redirected them to the episode list because that is where they belong. TTN 21:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oh yeah, I suggest this as an alternative outlet for them. It is a much better place for episodes with only plot summaries. TTN 21:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Stubs are allowed if they have the possibility of becoming decent articles in the future. These do not contain the possibility for outside information or sources. WP:EPISODE requires some sort of outside information, including, but not limited to reception and development. Unless they have the possibility of that information, they need to stay redirects. TTN 21:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Examples of what these should have can be found here, here, and in any of the episode articles here. TTN 21:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- The episode being a source is pointless. It's obvious enough that it plays no part in the discussion. Do the DVDs give enough non-trivial information to actual make a decent section? Most DVDs have some commentary, but it's often minor goofs. Every episode must be able to conform to the guideline to exist. Some episodes will need articles, while others won't. That goes along with your next point of "the others have articles." I'm not going to remove them because it would be too much work for me at this point. I'm slowly trying to cut down on episode articles, and the larger ones will be last. I don't understand what you mean by "creating pages by series." Do you mean by season? TTN 21:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Episodes are not outside sources. They are a primary source, so they don't enter that realm. That is why they are pointless. I have asked you a few times, but you have yet to respond - do the DVDs have enough information to make a section? If they do not, they have no worth. "Other crap exists" isn't a good reason to keep an article. The rest of the unneeded episode articles will be cleared in the future, though it will be slow. WP:EPISODE is clear in that episodes need to be more than summaries and trivia (see WP:TRIV by the way). Feel free to ask for a third opinion or something like that. Contacting an admin outright will not bring any closure to this. TTN 22:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- As I have said, commentary, more often than not, is just made up of trivial goofs. Either show that these are an exception, or stop flaunting them around. Deleting high traffic episodes will do little at this point. Besides be bombarded by ten people, like-minded to yourself, nothing will get done. By slowly killing off articles, I hope to be able to achieve that at one point. And not having looked at any of the Lost episodes or having talked to any of the editors, I don't know if decent articles can be made out of them or not. "Once there's enough verifiable information from secondary sources about individual episodes, create separate articles for them" seems to disagree with your last point. The episodes are fine sources, but they need more than that to exist. TTN 22:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, as a fan of many different series, I would love just to come here and read every single detail about them. But, alas, this is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. What is covered here must have some sort of relevance in the outside world. If all that can be provided is a plot summary, it falls under fan information. It has no relevance to the outside world, and only fans and deeply interested people can take away from it. That kind of information belongs on a fan site or an appropriate place (TV.com in this case). Would you really rather have Anakin Skywalker (plot summary only) instead of Jabba the Hutt (plot summary, development, creation, reception)? (If you want a different example than Star Wars, let me know.) TTN 23:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- I would suggest working on the plot summaries on the episode list first, but I won't stop you from creating season articles. In general though, season articles are only created if the actual season has enough encyclopedic information or the episode list couldn't handle the plot summaries. Both are true for The Simpsons (season 8), but there seems to be little point with this show. It can easily handle doubled or tripled plot summaries, and the seasons, like the episodes, don't seem to be separate enough from the actual show. So, I would say, get the episode list up to a good standing, and if necessary, create season article. TTN 23:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, as a fan of many different series, I would love just to come here and read every single detail about them. But, alas, this is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. What is covered here must have some sort of relevance in the outside world. If all that can be provided is a plot summary, it falls under fan information. It has no relevance to the outside world, and only fans and deeply interested people can take away from it. That kind of information belongs on a fan site or an appropriate place (TV.com in this case). Would you really rather have Anakin Skywalker (plot summary only) instead of Jabba the Hutt (plot summary, development, creation, reception)? (If you want a different example than Star Wars, let me know.) TTN 23:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- As I have said, commentary, more often than not, is just made up of trivial goofs. Either show that these are an exception, or stop flaunting them around. Deleting high traffic episodes will do little at this point. Besides be bombarded by ten people, like-minded to yourself, nothing will get done. By slowly killing off articles, I hope to be able to achieve that at one point. And not having looked at any of the Lost episodes or having talked to any of the editors, I don't know if decent articles can be made out of them or not. "Once there's enough verifiable information from secondary sources about individual episodes, create separate articles for them" seems to disagree with your last point. The episodes are fine sources, but they need more than that to exist. TTN 22:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Episodes are not outside sources. They are a primary source, so they don't enter that realm. That is why they are pointless. I have asked you a few times, but you have yet to respond - do the DVDs have enough information to make a section? If they do not, they have no worth. "Other crap exists" isn't a good reason to keep an article. The rest of the unneeded episode articles will be cleared in the future, though it will be slow. WP:EPISODE is clear in that episodes need to be more than summaries and trivia (see WP:TRIV by the way). Feel free to ask for a third opinion or something like that. Contacting an admin outright will not bring any closure to this. TTN 22:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- The episode being a source is pointless. It's obvious enough that it plays no part in the discussion. Do the DVDs give enough non-trivial information to actual make a decent section? Most DVDs have some commentary, but it's often minor goofs. Every episode must be able to conform to the guideline to exist. Some episodes will need articles, while others won't. That goes along with your next point of "the others have articles." I'm not going to remove them because it would be too much work for me at this point. I'm slowly trying to cut down on episode articles, and the larger ones will be last. I don't understand what you mean by "creating pages by series." Do you mean by season? TTN 21:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Examples of what these should have can be found here, here, and in any of the episode articles here. TTN 21:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Stubs are allowed if they have the possibility of becoming decent articles in the future. These do not contain the possibility for outside information or sources. WP:EPISODE requires some sort of outside information, including, but not limited to reception and development. Unless they have the possibility of that information, they need to stay redirects. TTN 21:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
