User talk:Pmcalduff

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Pmcalduff, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Contents 1 An Invite to join Novels WikiProject 2 Inappropriate 'See also' additions 3 About my use of "See also" 4 SF magazines and minor edits 5 December 2007 6 January 2008 7 Orson Scott Card Views on sex 8 * 9 Stub class vs Start class 10 Frogs and Scientists 11 Orphaned non-free media (Image:UltimateIronMan.jpg)

[edit] An Invite to join Novels WikiProject

[edit] Inappropriate 'See also' additions

Hello. You have been adding the following to many science fiction magazine articles:

==See also==
* [[Science fiction magazine]]
* [[Fantasy fiction magazine]]
* [[Horror fiction magazine]]
* [[Online magazine]]
* [[Magazine]]

Please read WP:ALSO for why these additions are inappropriate. 'See also' entries are to be used very selectively, for internal links that are related to the article in question but are not present in the article. [[Science fiction magazine]] is typically present in the lead sentence of these articles, and does not need to be repeated. [[Online magazine]] will also be present in the lead if appropriate; otherwise it doesn't belong. If a particular sf magazine also prints fantasy or horror, those too will be in the lead, otherwise they don't belong. And finally [[Magazine]] is a common English word, and does not need to be in a 'See also'. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About my use of "See also"

I added See alos to most of the science fiction magazines because about 95% of them did NOT have a link to Science fiction magazine present in the lead sentence of the articles or anywhere else for that matter. And there should be. Articles don’t exist in a vacuum. However, I’m sorry if I added it to a few articles where it was already present.

In most cases I think adding internal links to Fantasy fiction magazine and Horror fiction magazine were appropriate since most Science fiction magazines also publish Fantasy fiction and Horror fiction.

However you are absolutely right that there is no need for a link to Magazine and and that Online magazine should only be used where appropriate.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmcalduff (talk • contribs)

If the lead sentence of a science fiction magazine article is lacking a link to science fiction magazine, then you should add it to the lead sentence, so that readers know what kind of magazine this is (unless it's already made clear through some other means). If the magazine also publishes fantasy or horror, then you should add fantasy fiction magazine or horror fiction magazine to appropriate sentences in the main text of the article itself. Putting these in the 'See also' section doesn't make it clear what you mean. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

"See Also"s are generally used sparingly, if at all. It is generally much more useful to wikilink appropriate terms within the article. I also question your theory that all SF magazines are also horror magazines and fantasy magazines. (John W. Campbell, I suspect, would be horrified by such an accusation against Analog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangemike (talk • contribs) 08:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I said most. Not all. Having read Analog I would have to say that it is an exception. Pmcalduff (talk) 09:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I’m not trying to argue with you (really). However, I think adding these links into leading sentences will be very very difficult at times. Take the example of “Fantastic” magazine:

'''''Fantastic''''' was a [[fantasy]] and [[science fiction]] [[magazine]] 
published in the [[United States]] from 1952 to 1980.

Fantastic was a fantasy and science fiction magazine published in the United States from 1952 to 1980.

Now that looks good but the links will take you to fantasy (the genre), science fiction (the genre) and magazines (in general). While those links are well and good they don’t link back to the pages for other “science fiction magazines” or other “fantasy fiction magazines”.

Okay so I change it to:

'''''Fantastic''''' was a [[fantasy fiction magazine]] and 
a [[science fiction magazine]] published in the [[United States]] 
from 1952 to 1980.

Fantastic was a fantasy fiction magazine and a science fiction magazine published in the United States from 1952 to 1980.

Well now it links to pages for other “science fiction magazines” and “fantasy fiction magazines” but we’ve lost the links to fantasy (the genre) and science fiction (the genre) plus it now looks redundant and awkward to read so someone will probably come along and change it back.

So I change it to:

'''''Fantastic''''' was a [[fantasy fiction magazine|fantasy]] and 
a [[science fiction magazine|science fiction]] magazine published in 
the [[United States]] from 1952 to 1980.

Fantastic was a fantasy and a science fiction magazine published in the United States from 1952 to 1980.

Now it reads nicely but when someone clicks on the link for “fantasy” they will be expecting to get “fantasy” not “fantasy fiction magazines” and when they click on “science fiction” they will be expecting to get “science fiction” not “science fiction magazines”. And we still don’t have links to fantasy (the genre) and science fiction (the genre).

And that is of course only with fantasy and SF. Some magazines publish fantasy SF and horror which will make it even more difficult.

So how can I do it???

That's a reasonable question. I think the answer in this case is that the lead is too short. The version you give with the piped link is actually OK; the word "fantasy" is attached to "magazine" syntactically, and I don't think the reader will be very surprised. However, a couple of additional sentences talking about the mixture of genres in the magazine would give you the ability to link directly to the articles on those genres. I think that's a better approach. For another point of view take a look at Authentic Science Fiction, which is a featured article but does not link to science fiction directly anywhere. It just links to science fiction magazine. I think that's actually OK; anyone who doesn't know what sf is will certainly be able to click through from the magazine article. It would also be possible to link to science fiction in the first sentence of the body of the article; that would be fine. Using "See also" links is a weaker choice because they only appear at the end. I've seen comments to the effect that all "see also" links should eventually disappear as the material they relate to should appear in the article itself; I don't know if that's always going to be true but it's a good goal. Mike Christie (talk) 11:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Another alternative is

'''''Fantastic''''' was a [[fantasy fiction magazine|fantasy]] 
and [[science fiction magazine]] published in the [[United States]] from 1952 to 1980.

This keeps "science fiction magazine" in the same link, and by precedessor context the link to "fantasy fiction magazine" won't be a surprise. And as Mike Christie says, "science fiction" and "fantasy fiction" are indirect "parent links" that the reader can click through to. Or, you can work them into the article later if you want. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SF magazines and minor edits

Hi -- glad to see someone working on the sf magazines; there's a lot more that could be done there. However, I wanted to suggest that you might think about using the "minor" flag a bit less. There's certainly variation among editors about when to use it, but generally I think it's wise to restrict it to formatting errors, typos, clean up, and so on. You added a whole section to the Bedsheet article, and an image to Weasel word; I have no issues with your edits but I don't think these are really minor edits. Just a suggestion. Mike Christie (talk) 02:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

You are right. Since about 90% of my edits are "minor" I changed my default setting to "minor" and kind of forgot about it. I'll change it back. By the way, I removed the image from Weasel word shortly after putting it up. At the time i though it would be funny to put the picture of a real weasel on the page but then (wisely) decided that others might view my joke as vandalism.

I'd forgotten that you could set "minor" as default; yes, I think you're right to change it. Better to mistakenly mark something non-minor than the reverse. Sounds like you made the right decision on the weasel too. Just FYI, I hope to get back to some of the magazine articles soon and take one or more to WP:FAC, so I may run into you there. I was thinking of doing Imagination (magazine), but haven't decided yet. Mike Christie (talk) 03:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I added a first issue cover to Imagination (magazine) in case you do.

[edit] December 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to List of Ender's Game series short stories, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Alexfusco5 01:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern. However, there are separate articles for each of the stories on that page making the plot summaries redundant. I was trying to link to the articles.Pmcalduff (talk) 01:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Try shortening it and using {{Main|main article name}} Alexfusco5 01:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good.Pmcalduff (talk) 01:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] January 2008

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Liahona, without explaining the reason for the removal in the edit summary. Unexplained removal of content does not appear constructive, and your edit has been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox for test edits. Thank you. StephenBuxton (talk) 15:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I wasn't playing around. I used that information to create a separate article on the magazine complete with a magazine cover and links to other similar magazines and an external link to .pdf versions of the magazine. Pmcalduff (talk) 15:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was hanging around the recent changes page looking for vandals to revert/accidental deletions/etc, when I saw that article lose a lot of text without any explanation. In future, I would recommend always using an edit summary, or else risk other busy-bodies like me reverting your work. If you are likely to forget to use the edit summary box, there is a setting in your profile that you can change to get reminders if it is ever blank. StephenBuxton (talk) 15:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orson Scott Card Views on sex

Just to let you know I'm proposing restoring this section - see my reasoning and proposed wording for the section on the talk page. Look forward to hearing your thoughts. --Zeborah (talk) 08:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Go (Censored) yourself, asshole. Leave the O.S. Card article alone, he's a dirty Bush-loving Zionist kike, and the article needs to reflect these facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.166.197 (talk) 12:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

- I am truly appalled by this comment, especially as it comes from someone supposedly on "my side" on this argument. I do believe that the wiki article on Card should accurately report his homophobic views and his opinion that these views are not homophobic, but I am disgusted by this comment and the anti-Semitic sentiments it expresses, as well as the rudeness towards you. Sincerely, Yonmei (talk) 12:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

- Thank you for your kind words. The writer of this filth is not only rude and racist but sadly misinformed. Card is a Mormon not Jewish. Pmcalduff (talk) 15:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] *

		The Original Barnstar
		For your awesome work creating Navboxes pertaining to Orson Scott Card. Great job, and happy editing! Malinaccier (talk) 00:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Pmcalduff (talk) 02:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stub class vs Start class

I recently created a page for Frank Herbert’s short story "A Matter of Traces" and you rated it as "start class" on the quality scale which I appreciate. The reason I'm writing to you is because I have created pages on other short stories (some of which were, in my opinion, better than the one you evaluated) have had them rated as stubs. Probably the best page I've created was on the short story "Gert Fram" by Orson Scott Card. I was a bit surprised when it got a stub rating. What exactly is the difference between a stub and a start class page? Pmcalduff (talk) 07:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The choice of stub vs. start can be kind of arbitrary, as the actual criteria are relatively vague. I personally feel like stubs are total bare-bones articles, and that Start class covers a broader range of small/incomplete articles. Some editors are more strict. In the case of "A Matter of Traces," it needs expansion but I think it covers the basics, which to me is beyond a stub. I also "upgraded" "Gert Fram" because as you say, it's more substantial. — TAnthony^Talk 18:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I responded on your talk page.

[edit] Frogs and Scientists

I hope you can provide reliable sources for the short story to show that it is notable. Paddy Simcox (talk) 10:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:UltimateIronMan.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:UltimateIronMan.jpg. 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) 12:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)