User talk:Cyrus XIII

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a Wikipedia user talk page.

This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cyrus_XIII.
This is the user talk page for User:Cyrus XIII, where you can send messages and comments to Cyrus XIII.
Archive
Archives
July '06 – June '07
Since July '07


Contents

[edit] WikiProject Films coordinator elections

The WikiProject Films coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect five coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by March 28! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 10:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Taskforce for BEMANI

I have created a taskforce, and I hope you express interest on it (: Fireblaster lyz (talk) 04:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re:Opeth logo

The logo was explicitly asked not to be in the article in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Opeth. I don't own the article, however, if somebody needs help with a certain edit, they should probably come to me because I rewrote the article and am the FAC nominator. Please look at the discussion on the FAC page. The logo should not be there. Burningclean [speak] 21:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't be there. The "closed" FAC discussion wasn't a failure, therefor all comments must stay and be aplied, otherwise it could be demoted. Even though it is so simple, if that discussion had one oppose still standing, it would not have been promoted. Burningclean [speak] 22:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, your funny. And no, it was three days ago. Burningclean [speak] 23:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry bought the timezone thing, I realised that right afterwards. Why do you move all my comments to my talk page? The general consensus and rule is that it does not belong there. Burningclean [speak] 23:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I must really fit in...

Is being labeled ethnocentric as a gaijin a compliment???? :-) Neier (talk) 11:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, I'm not sure. But getting that kind of talk for applying English language text-formatting rules to the English Wikipedia is ... something. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 15:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
You obviously have more time than me to fight the good fight. I guess I should put Talk:M*A*S*H on my watch list pre-emptively.  :-) Neier (talk) 14:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] LOTR/SW

Hi Cyrus, re the LOTR/Star Wars link discussion. If the decision is made to remove this material from The Star Wars article, please can you also delete the 'same same but different' material in the 'empire strikes back' article. Thanks Col —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.243.10.13 (talk) 23:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm usually somewhat reluctant to actively join in on disputes for which I have only provided my two cents via WP:3O but given that my evaluation of the source for said content has not been disputed, it seems that you would certainly be at the liberty to remove the respective paragraph and likewise unreferenced content in related articles. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 15:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

Thanks for the Barnstar award, Cyrus XIII! It was my pleasure to help out with the Legs and Boots article. I see you created the track list template? Awesome job! Keep up the good work! =) --Pisceandreams (talk) 19:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sailor Moon Template

While your attempts to standardize it with other things across Wiki is appreciated, please discuss drastic changes like that. In this case, dicuss it with the members of WP:SM. Such large changes generally require a consenus amoung other wikipeidans. On a more specific note, the reason we had things sorted the way we did is to seperate the the Royal Trio, the Guardian, the Outers, and the other heros. On the villan side it was to seperate them by Story Arc. If you had already dicussed this and I didn't see it, feel free to revert it. PS: If you are interested in Sailor Moon, please join the wikiproject. Lego3400: The Sage of Time (talk) 16:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Band logos

Sourced commentary is not 'desirable', it is absolutely essential. Why should logos be treated any different to any other image? We can't just add random non-free images; they should be added only if they add significantly to a reader's understanding of the text. When the logo isn't even mentioned, how can it? We're Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, not Wikipedia, the pretty encyclopedia that doesn't care about copyright. J Milburn (talk) 23:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Then you might want to take this to the talk page of WP:LOGOS and challenge the bit about "reasonable familiarity" – the images you recently removed conform to that guideline as they have all been associated with the respected article subjects for several years. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 23:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
WP:LOGO is a guideline, and I would even argue that it shouldn't be. If, however, you review our non free content criteria- a well established policy- you will see that the logos' usages are in violation of said policy. Review our featured articles on bands- there's a list of decent heavy metal articles here- you will see that the logos are only included when the prose discusses them. If we include the logo without discussing it, what's to stop us including every non-free image ever associated with the band? Logos should not be treated any differently from any other non-free image- the law doesn't treat them any differently, and neither do Wikipedia's policies. It is undeniable that logos often do meet our criteria, but that doesn't mean that they always do. J Milburn (talk) 23:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
If you feel that that WP:LOGOS is at odds with our central policies and subsequently needs adjustment or does not deserve its guideline status altogether, again, go to Wikipedia talk:Logos and start a discussion. As long as it remains a guideine or contains the respective passages, I will continue to edit on behalf of that page (and the wider consensus that shaped it) and I will also have to ask you to respect that. Repeated opposition to the application of a guideline on the grounds of disagreement with the guideline alone is not productive. I see that all the time when applying WP:MOSTM to articles with strong fanbases around them and it is a profound waste of energy. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 00:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Erm, no. To put it overly bluntly, my policy trumps your guideline. End of conversation. There is no way that you can sit there and assert that we should have a non-free image sitting in an article when it is not even discussed in the text. I will review WP:LOGO a little more in-depth now. J Milburn (talk) 00:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Having reviewed WP:LOGO, I see nothing in it that disagrees with anything I have said. I dislike the wording, and that's why I would dispute it as a solid guideline, but that is neither here nor there. No where does it, and no where should it, go against our non-free content criteria. Also, those are guidelines for corporate logos, I think a strong argument could be made that band logos should be treated differently. In any case, you reinsert logos citing that guideline- can I ask, exactly which part of that guideline are you citing? 00:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
So the conversation has not ended after all – good. The respective passage would be: "Generally, logos should be used only when the logo is reasonably familiar" If a subject has chosen to strongly associate itself with an image over an extended period of time, the image becomes noteworthy in the context of said subject. Also the guideline does not limit the scope of the term "owner" (of a logo) to companies, hence bands, as just another type of organization and also solo artists are well covered by it, which in turn conforms with WP:NPOV. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 00:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, my comment there was overly blunt, as I made clear. As for "If a subject has chosen to strongly associate itself with an image over an extended period of time, the image becomes noteworthy in the context of said subject." I disagree- usually, yes, but not always. I absolutely agree that noteworthy logos should be included, but I disagree that we are able to decide when a logo has become noteworthy by arbitarily judging how long a band has been associated with it- instead, we should base whether the logo is noteworthy by whether the band members, or, even better, third party sources discuss it in writing, and include said commentary in the article. Then we can include an image of the logo, to show what we are talking about. If the logo has never been discussed by the band members or other sources, then who are we to say it's noteworthy? J Milburn (talk) 01:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
You are proposing a level of scrutiny we are obviously not applying at this project, not even by a long shot. Are you prepared to challenge the use of every fair use logo on Wikipedia that lacks a referenced discussion? Because anything else would be promoting a double-standard. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 01:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Using that logic, whenever I edit a metal-related page, I should edit a rap-related page. I'll edit what I want to edit/what I come across, and will apply higher levels of scrutiny in the areas I am familiar with, confident that my counterparts with other hobbies, tastes, interests and areas of knowledge/familiarity are doing the same. Every article, file, guideline or whatever should be treated on its own merits, and Wikipedia isn't perfect, I don't think anyone would say it is, but we can all try to do our bit to get it there. Basically- yes, I wish to apply the same standards everywhere, (or, I wish the same stadards were applied everywhere) but no, I won't be the one to do it, because I'm not the only person on this project, and I don't want to devote my on-Wiki time to something that is going to turn established and decent editors against me; there are lots of things that I do and want to do on Wikipedia, and this is just one of them. J Milburn (talk) 01:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
You see, this is why I suggested a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Logos in pursuit of clarification (and if consensus supports it, adjustment) in the first place. Taking a dispute that concerns multiple articles to guideline-level is the sensible thing to do, if we (within the scope of effort we can muster as individuals) want to improve Wikipedia as a whole. Which is something we both obviously want, we merely differ on the threshold for inclusion of a type of image. For you, referenced discussion is a requirement, while for me association over an extended period of time suffices. And I do realize that my criteria remains rather vague, but if WP:LOGOS, with its reasonable familiarity won't be anymore specific neither will I. As I noticed, you already posted the guideline talk page, I'm eager to see what will come of it. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 01:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

(Deliberate undent) Just to let you know, I'm not watching this page, and I am heading off for the evening now. Any further discussion you wish to have, drop me a line on my talk page. J Milburn (talk) 01:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop changing SuperS

Please stop changing all instances of SuperS to Supers across the Sailor Moon pages - the actual name of the SuperS series has not changed, just its name on Wikipedia. Changing the links would be fine, changing all instances of SuperS to Supers is uncalled for. -Malkinann (talk) 09:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually it is, as the opening paragraph of the Wikipedia Manual of Style calls for consistent application of its style and formatting guidelines. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 09:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
In this case MOS doesn't apply. The capitalization of SuperS is not only the reasult of Engrish, Its also the offical capitalzaion. Due to the latter, It would be the same as going to iPod and Replaceing them all with Ipod or eBay with Ebay. Lego3400: The Sage of Time (talk) 15:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
The circumstances that "SuperS" is an incorrect variation of English or the official typeset have no bearing on how we render them here. If you read WP:MOSTM carefully, you will also realize that the iPod/eBay examples are a different story entirely, since the guideline specifically addresses such cases of separable, one-letter-prefixes. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 16:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:The pillows logo.png

Eh, its a close one. I'd say leave it fairuse, since the angle at the end and the rounded corners at the beginning are an integral and separate part of the logo from the text itself. MBisanz talk 18:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Teruzane Utada

1. There's an article on the Japanese Wikipedia so translation is a possibility. 2. I got some newspaper articles who briefly state who Teruzane Utada is. I'll find more.. 3. If you want to challenge its notability why not use AFD? WhisperToMe (talk) 16:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Also since the Washington Post article states "famed music producer who oversaw his wife's career" perhaps archives from the 1980s and/or 1970s may refer to him... WhisperToMe (talk) 16:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Those are pretty solid sources, though the scope of his own professional career still needs to be fleshed out, if anything, to make this article of any interest to our readers that goes beyond "the record producer who is the father of Hikaru Utada". – Cyrus XIII (talk) 16:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brian D Foy

While I agree with the stance you're taking, please don't change the titles of the references to match the article title. The links are actually titled with "brian d foy". -- Earle Martin [t/c] 17:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Just applying the MOS consistently, but since I'm not aware of any guideline for or against the normalization of citation titles, I'll just leave it like that now. After all, I still have to unearth reputable sources on the capitalization of proper nouns... – Cyrus XIII (talk) 18:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] dEUS videos

Dear Cyrus XIII,

if you require confirmation that dEUS has given permission to add links to their official videos on YouTube on the dEUS Band page on Wikipedia, send me an email and I will ask the dEUS management to send you a reply.

Elice (talk) 21:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

That won't be necessary, as the band's website already links to the YouTube channel, which confirm its authenticity. But even with, or should I say especially with official backing, such an exhaustive list of external links (potentially promotional in nature) collides with certain parts of the WP:NOT guideline (see the soapbox and repository bits). As a compromise, I have added the YouTube channel to the article's External links section. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 22:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:X Japan

I'll take another look and leave my comments on the talk page for the article. But first, I've got a couple things that I noticed at the first look:

I've got no problem with first-party sources, WP:SELFPUB says that's okay. As long as it's relevant and the article doesn't fully rely on them, it's ok. If you've fixed the linking problem for every source that I had the first time I looked, then you should be fine. I know finding sources might be difficult, but I've done it before with another article that seemed even more impossible (read Crush 40, that was nearly impossible to source the style section). Also, I seriously doubt you'll get enough out of the article for four samples, cut it down to one or two and you should be fine as long as you write good fair use rationales and connections to the text. You could work the samples into the history section, but you'd need to explain in the text how that particular song is relevant and the sample is used in an encyclopedic manner.

Best of luck, I'll take another look later tonight, I've got some work I have to take care of first. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 23:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit to Crush 40, but I've got just one issue: Can you set it so the track listings are showing to start instead of hidden? Otherwise, I may just have to revert it, but it really is a cool feature if I can get it to show when the article first opens. Anyway, the hold period is up for X Japan, and I plan on taking another look later today. If you need more time, just ask, and I'll be more than happy to let you have it. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 14:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rossz csillag alatt született

Please do not change capitalization in this article. The album and song titles are in Hungarian and follow Hungarian capitalization rules (refer to this page for a short summary). KovacsUr (talk) 17:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I had to revert most of your recent edit, as it contradicted the Wikipedia Manual of Style, our guidelines for music related articles as well as every outside source (both first-party and third-party) and review we have on the album. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 18:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but I will have to revert your edit as often as the 3RR allows. I am positive your intentions are good, but you are in effect vandalizing the article by reverting it to a broken state. I advise you to read the lengthy discussion about this topic on the article's talk page, 5thEye's talk page and the relevant section on the WikiProject Albums talk page. KovacsUr (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Just adding this because, as far as I know, it has not been mentioned elsewhere. In contrast with English, capitalization rules in Hungarian are not a question of style. We have a system of rules regulating written Hungarian laid down and governed by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. There is only one clearly defined way of capitalizing song and album titles. KovacsUr (talk) 19:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

That's all good and well (while uncited) but this is not the Hungarian Wikipedia. When it comes to style, we follow the lead of reputable English sources (lest we pertain to original research) and when there is as clear a preference for a particular typeset as this among such sources (including the label that published the album we are discussing) we cannot just ignore that, especially when our own style guides do not accommodate your desired approach. Also, in order to advance your position, you might want to refrain from outright declaring an edit war ("will have to revert your edit as often as the 3RR allows") or dismissing editing done with the WP:MOS and WP:OR/WP:V in mind as vandalism. We have proper means of dispute resolution, so lets use them. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 20:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I appeared aggressive, it's only that I am a bit tired of having to come back to this article and fix it again whenever someone new comes along who is not familiar with the rules of capitalization in Hungarian (or thinks foreign titles should be capitalized according to English rules). Naturally I am all for resolving this issue amicably, but since you apparently ignored all previous conversation on this topic and went ahead and changed capitalization, it seemed to me that you would be unwilling to become involved in a debate.

The language of a wiki is of little relevance when it comes to article titles in a foreign language, at least as long as both languages use the Latin writing system (see the examples of article names in German and French on enwiki I have given earlier). You cannot expect a poor reviewer at Rolling Stone or NME to know anything about Hungarian grammar (or to even know what language the album title is in), therefore the "reputable English sources" you cited are not all that reputable when it comes to the question of correct capitalization. KovacsUr (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

As for your comment about WP:OR, capitalization rules in Hungarian can hardly be deemed original research. The full text of A magyar helyesírás szabályai is available on Wikisource. The relevant section is the following: A címek. A rough translation is provided on the MusicBrainz page linked earlier. KovacsUr (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This is very similar to the debate about Japanese romanization of words. The Japanese government has a preferred system (Romanization of Japanese, which conflicts with most academics, and which we have rejected here at WP. We don't have Itirô Suzuki, even though that is the Japanese legal spelling of his name. We have the article at the name which is reported by most reputable sources, even if those sources aren't aware of the laws pertaining to romanization of Japanese names. And, just as we cannot expect that the Rolling Stone reviewer is aware of the language of a title, we should not expect or enforce a country's system for titling outside that country, just because their language matches the piece's name which otherwise is not related to the laws of the country at all. If Hungarian law prohibited singing about mimes, and I created a song "Suppression of the mimes" translated into Hungarian, how would the Hungarian title be presented? Neier (talk) 01:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I see no similarity whatsoever as Japanese is not written in Latin. It has more to do with titles in French or German like Der Luftpirat und sein Lenkbares Luftschiff, Voyage autour du monde or Tentative d'épuisement d'un lieu parisien. It would be silly to enforce English capitalization rules on these. KovacsUr (talk) 06:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] your changes to the DearS article

I have reverted your changes to DearS article. I'm guessing you probably think "DearS" is the single word "dears", the plural form of the noun "dear". In actuality, the "S" is pronounced separately, and the "dear" is an adjective. If anything about "DearS" is stylistic, it is the lack of a space. Thus, a completely non-stylized form would be "Dear S". The version without a space is known as CamelCase, and Wikipedia's style guide explicitly allows it. The CamelCase article has many examples of articles with CamelCase titles. The form "Dear S" would also work, but "Dears" is just wrong. "DearS" means "dear friends", not "dears". The term is pronounced like "dear ess" in the anime. Herorev (talk) 01:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Columns in Template:Tracklist

I have posted my thoughts regarding your proposal on columns in Template:Tracklist over at my talk page. Cheers. – IbLeo (talk) 07:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Love symbol 2.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Love symbol 2.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 08:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jeremiah Wright controversy - title

Hi Cyrus XIII, There is currently a proposal to change the existing title "Jeremiah Wright controversy" that we supported last month. If you could "Oppose title change" on the talk page [[1]], it would be appreciated. Thanks, IP 75 75.25.30.215 (talk) 06:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tracklist - Newcolumn

Sweet. Nice work. Thanks for the effort of putting it in. Do you plan on updating the template use too?happypal (Talk | contribs) 13:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)