Talk:Maternity Leave (Lost)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Maternity Leave (Lost) article.
Article policies
TV
Television Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Television, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to television programs and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Assessment comments
This page falls within the scope of the Lost WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia articles relating to the 2004–2010 ABC television series Lost. Information on future episodes needs to follow the policy regarding sources.


Contents

[edit] Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no move. Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 21:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Maternity Leave (Lost) → Maternity Leave — Page serves as an unnecessary disambiguation. There is no article on maternity leave, just parental leave, which the Lost episode article disambiguates at the top. Wikipedical 00:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Support, as nominator. -- Wikipedical 00:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment You are the nominator! --BlueSquadronRaven 00:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Isn't that what he's saying? I don't think this was bad faith, just a slight variation in format. He's saying, "I, as the nominator, support this move."—Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 01:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
This is the first time I have ever encountered it. It is misleading and looks poor on the part of the nominator. --BlueSquadronRaven 03:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
It's done almost universally at FAC. I don't see how it's any different here. Jay32183 07:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose due to confusion with a still common term, article or not, and for above bad faith seconding of own nomination. --BlueSquadronRaven 00:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think it was bad faith; it's common practice to vote "as nominator" after nomination. Please see WP:AGF. Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 01:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose; I believe that most people typing "maternity leave" into the search box will be looking for parental leave. That's what should determine article naming. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose: This move would be inappropriate, as per Josiah Rowe above. And I don't think that Wikipedial was acting in bad faith, since he identified himself as nominator. Riverbend 00:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Most people typing "maternity leave" into Wikipedia probably have paternity leave in mind; if it goes any diretion, it should default to a redirect to paternity leave, with a note on top. Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 01:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    Comment: paternity leave, like maternity leave, is a redirect to the non-gender-specific parental leave, which covers both (related) concepts. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Maternity leave (lowercase L) is already a redirect to parental leave. If anything, this should be too. -Anþony 01:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Per everyone. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Maternity Leave is a common term, which should redirect to parental leave, or paternity leave, not to Lost. --Plkrtn 10:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per the Lost naming conventions all Lost articles should have (Lost) appended. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: those naming conventions are disputed, as you know quite well, Matthew. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per MatthewFenton. --Elonka 20:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, someone looking for "Maternity Leave" will be looking for Parental Leave, not some LOST episode. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 21:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I find having the name of the TV series in () to be a good thing as it makes it easy (easier) to see if a page is about en episode or not. (And also, I would think that most people searching for maternal leave are looking for the article found at parental leave. (And I don't know what most episodes of TV series I watch are called, and would instead first look for an article about the TV series.)) Johnsonsjohnson 12:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If someone types "Maternity Leave" into the search box, chance are, they're not looking for information on an episode of Lost. -Sean Curtin 08:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Obviously "Maternity leave", wether if it has an independent entry or not is not by default an epysode of a TV series. --Sugaar 02:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments:
  • Comment Appearantly, people aren't usually happy when the only thing separating to terms is proper noun versus not proper noun. If people knew to only use lowercase letters when searching for something that is not a proper noun I would support this move. That does not seem to be the case though. Jay32183 01:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
i should point out that using capitalization to seperate articles is pretty common. For example, Quantum Leap redirects to Quantum Leap (TV series), where as Quantum leap is your article on physics. Even though i'd suspect the vast majority of people hitting "Quantum Leap" into the go box are looking for the physics. --`/aksha 02:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Since the move request is going down in flames...

Is there a stomach for removing the dab page and redirecting Maternity Leave straight to parental leave? A two-item dab page is not very useful. Parental leave already has a top link referring back to Maternity Leave (Lost) because maternity leave (lowercase L) redirects there. -Anþony 11:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Sounds VERY reasonable, good idea. Riverbend 19:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Done. -Anþony (talk) 21:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Maternity-leave-cap566.jpg

Image:Maternity-leave-cap566.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:The staff LOST.jpg

Image:The staff LOST.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Dharma medicine.jpg

Image:Dharma medicine.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)