User talk:TAnthony/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive

  Archive 1
  Archive 2
  Archive 3
  Archive 4
  Archive 5
  Archive 6

Contents

[edit] Galaxy too small?

Hi. Re the BJ page "universe" vs. "galaxy" thang: Why do you say "galaxy is too small"? This is true later of Leto II's empire ("my multigalactic empire") and anything after the Scattering, but at the time of the Jihad? Do you have a quote you base this on? (Just wondering if I've missed something!) --SandChigger 19:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Butlerian Jihad article, I know that technically a galaxy can contain many star systems or whatever, but I think the word connotes a smaller scale (maybe because own galaxy is a single-star system). Obviously FH never specifies exactly how far apart his planets are and all that, but if they were relatively close, heighliner travel wouldn't be such a big issue! And FH never used the word galaxy (except in your Leto quote); maybe we should use "multigalactic" in the article. TAnthony 20:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Hmm...this is turning out to be interesting. You kinda threw me with galaxy "connot[ing] a smaller scale (maybe because own galaxy is a single-star system)." Are you referring to the Milky Way? I'm not getting your meaning. (Of course, I've been up all night and may no longer be rational!) Could you explain?
It's true that FH didn't specify distances, but he did locate some of his planets around known stars, FWIW. (Note that our estimates of the distances to some of these—the best example being Canopus itself!—have changed significantly since he wrote Dune.) A lot of people have commented on how small the area the Old Empire seems to occupy really is when you "connect the dots". But even for a space of only a few hundred light years, heighliner travel IS a big deal. While FH never specifically rules out FTL travel, he never specifically admits it, either. (I personally believe he eschewed "vroom-vroom"—as I prefer to call space-opera FTL like we see in the Legends—and therefore had to come up with space-folding to avoid the story-killing snail's pace of generation ships. Another reason, incidentally, why I think B&K erred in placing Holtzman in the Jihad era; if later Ixian navigational devices can replace navigators, pre-Jihad AIs would have been just as capable of the task. And at least a millennia or two of non-subluminal transportation would have been necessary to create the cosmopolitan galactic culture we see in the Legends. AI controlled space-folding ships are more "Dune-like" than vroom-vroom [internally consistent], and their destruction during the Jihad would have been a strong stimulus for the development of the Guild navigators.)
Finally, FH did use the word galaxy. Three times, in fact: once in Dune and twice in Heretics:
"It's a penal colony," the Baron said. "The worst riff-raff in the galaxy are sent to Salusa Secundus. What else do we need to know?"
Miles Teg knew his history well by then. Guild Navigators no longer were the only ones who could thread a ship through the folds of space—in this galaxy one instant, in a faraway galaxy the very next heartbeat.
(Galactic appears only in the combined form multigalactic that I mentioned before, in GEoD:
This planet of Arrakis from which I direct my multigalactic Empire is no longer what it was in the days when it was known as Dune. )
Not trying to be a pain...just exact. --SandChigger 23:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
LOL, you present your case like I would: dumping a pile of bricks on the opposition! You are so right, I was thinking solar system, not galaxy; I guess I shouldn't make edits at 2 am with a couple of drinks in me!
Obviously, I did see those uses of galaxy but I guess I meant that he didn't ever imply that his whole host of planets was in a single galaxy (at least, I wasn't interpreting it that way), e.g. "in this galaxy one instant, in a faraway galaxy the very next heartbeat." TAnthony 00:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
LOL...I figured it must have been something like that. (Hangover not too bad, if any, I hope.) Btw, any thoughts on the Landsraad point I brought up? (Also...does the name even occur in the Legends books? Some parts of my BoC file are a bit suss at best!) --SandChigger 05:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Landsraad

From Talk:Butlerian Jihad

The Landsraad, by OLD Canon, predates the post-Jihad religious riots by 2,000 years. Please see my comment here. --SandChigger 05:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I was the one who recently pulled (what I thought was) the DE material into its own section, and on the top of the Landsraad talk page, I admitted that some info could potentially need to be moved out of that section when sources were found (I don't know EVERYTHING, LOL). You should definitely work the 2000-year item back in somewhere; I'll check back when I have some time and do it myself if you're not able (stealing your quotes, of course!)
I only have text files up to Dune: Butlerian Jihad, but it's probably worth flipping through the end chapters of Battle of Corrin to see if Landsraad is actually used in some way, or if we're just making the logical assumption that the League led to it? It's interesting how we read an article with questionable facts, and then edit another article with those "facts" in our heads as if they're lifted from the books! Hmmm, obviously the Prelude series came first, but could they have alluded to the League origins of the Landsraad there? TAnthony 05:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 10,000 years

OK, what is wrong with me?! Regarding the Butlerian Jihad article, I'm the one that put in the Jihad definition from Dune which clearly includes the dates. Maybe I should give myself a vacation, ;) 06:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

ACK! If you go on vacation, there'll be no activity on the Dune pages at all!!!
Well, OK, probably not but still...don't sweat it. We all have off days! As the locals in these parts say, "Even the monkey falls from the tree." :) --SandChigger 06:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Monkeys?!

Where is it you live exactly? I'm in Los Angeles ... by the way, the more I look at the FH books vs. the prequels and Hunters, the more I see ways in which the boys (BH/KJA) went wrong. Have you been slipping something into my drinks? ;) TAnthony 16:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Where am I? Well...someplace with monkeys, obviously! :)
As the proverb says, 猿でも木から落ちる (Sometimes even a monkey falls from the trees). Here one monkey checks a comrade who has slipped for wounds...and tasty critter morsels!
As the proverb says, 猿でも木から落ちる (Sometimes even a monkey falls from the trees). Here one monkey checks a comrade who has slipped for wounds...and tasty critter morsels!
I really wouldn't know anything about anyone slipping something into your drinks. (BWA-HA-HA-HA!!!)
"Went wrong" is of course a very subjective thing. I don't hate or revile them, I'm just very sad because I think they could have done so much better. Ah well, maybe in a parallel universe? --SandChigger 18:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Religions (Dune)

I take that link edit/redirect as a vote for, then. :)

(I've been watching and waiting, sounding the waters; will steam ahead now. ... No, I don't know why the nautical theme, either.) --SandChigger 00:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dynasty middle names

Please stop re-adding these non-canon middle names; please see the following: Talk:Dynasty (TV series)#Removal of apocryphal character names for as explanation why they are inappropriate. TAnthony 01:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Why do you keep deleting my additions?
The "questionable" names come from three different sources: 1) the series; 2) The Authorized Biography of the Carringtons by Esther Shapiro; and 3) Judith Moose, author of Glamour, Greed & Glory - Dynasty. To quote her:
"This is information I got from Spelling Entertainment (about ten years ago) while working on a research project.
Blake Alexander Carrington
Alexis Marissa Morrell Carrington Colby Dexter Rowan
Fallon Marissa Carrington Colby
Amanda Kimberly Carrington
Claudia's middle name is Mary"
You might try watching the series. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jboy2525 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Watch the series?! You just stated on my talk page that these names are from a companion book and another author. As noted on the Talk page for the article, if these names were NOT ACTUALLY USED ON THE SHOW, they should not be listed in the character section. However, if you reference/quote these books, they may be included in the Behind the Scenes section. I have the Unauthorized Biography at home somewhere, I'd be happy to add the information the proper way for you if I can source it. TAnthony 01:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, I've added information on both books to the article, and mentioned the middle names in the only way which is appropriate — Moose may be entirely correct, but without documentation we have only her word, and that its not enough for Wikipedia standards. The middles names in question are not mentioned in The Authorized Biography (which, by the way, is not written by Shapiro, only has an intro by her). Thanks for your understanding. TAnthony 03:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Renaming Image

Thanks for renaming and then restoring the image for the Fremen article. I didn't know how to do it so I simply removed it instead. For future reference, how did you do that? Thanks. Comatose51 22:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No problemo, I had noticed the filename in the past and chose to ignore it! I did it the only way I know how... I saved the image to my PC, re-uploaded under a new name and linked the new file to the appropriate article(s). Then I tagged the old image for speedy deletion on the basis that it's redundant (using this template: {{db-redundantimage|replacement image name.ext}} and referencing the new filename). You just have to be sure the file to be deleted isn't linked to any articles or the Admin will get confused/kick it back. (I might have actually used a generic db template in this case, and also mentioned that the file was inappropriately named). TAnthony 00:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Family Houses in Dune

Hi TAnthony:
I think the List of Family Houses in Dune article needs to have a better summary, and make it understood that the list contains only houses specifically mentioned. Non-Dune fans that come to this list would get the impression that the number of houses is rather low. In my opinion, this is a disservice to them. Do you have any suggestions to improve the wording to make it implicitly clear that the list is non-exhaustive? Zidel333 15:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey there; since the article is a list of Houses mentioned in the series, I thought the fact that there are many more unnamed ones is immaterial. But there really should be a Landsraad link somewhere on the page anyway, so I added something back in. What do you think? TAnthony 16:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Your addition to the article is perfect. Thank you for your help on clarifying this. Zidel333 02:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject LGBT studies

"Hi, I saw your edits to Tales of the City, and I'd like to invite you to join WikiProject LGBT studies - we're a group of editors who are working together to improve LGBT-related articles. Would you be interested?"Zigzig20s 21:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite, I've joined up! TAnthony 22:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
My pleasure.Zigzig20s 22:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed you have joined WP:LGBT but are also into Dune - will you be improving the Baron's article anytime soon? :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation pages

Just wanted to drop you a friendly line about disambiguation pages. As per the style guideline for disambiguation pages, only the words being disambiguated get wikilinked, rather than the normal practice of linking all interesting terms. As such, I reverted the non-Oil links you added to the Oil (disambiguation) disambiguation page. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions or issues. --Kralizec! (talk) 04:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Fireplace 17:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject King Arthur

Hey! Just noticed your interest in King Arthur and wanted to invite you to join WikiProject King Arthur. Just add your name to the list of members in order to join. Basically, we are just grouping together to improve and organize wikiarticles about King Arthur. Wrad 20:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merged pop culture for Gorgons/Medusa

Thanks for doing this... I hadn't gotten around to it yet. DreamGuy 21:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coordinator

Would you be interested in standing as a Deputy Coordinator for WP:LGBT? From what I have seen on the talkpage you seem suited to the role. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I can't say I'm terribly impressed by Satyr's decision to go offline for the entire duration of the election. I'll send out a thing myself on AWB tonight - I just didn't want to message 182 members if I didn't have to. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 04:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The deadline for nominations has been extended until May 5 so more people have a chance to stand, I would encourage you to go for it. WjBscribe 19:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bands and WPBio

For your information, bands are in scope of the WikiProject Biography. Errabee 11:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redirects

No big deal but you might want to read this section of the redirect guidelines. IvoShandor 20:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Todd Manning

Some keeps doing damage to the Todd Manning article with Evangeline although I thought it was resolved--Migospia 22:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Devil Wears Prada as LGBT film

I saw you added the project tag to the talk page. I don't mind as the article maintainer, but it seems an iffy connection given the discussion near the end of the article. Another user did this last month and, after discussing it (her end), she decided just to cat it as LGBT-related (after reviewing this discussion) and leave it at that.

Just letting you know in case you might inadvertently be going against a consensus here. The more editors who might be working on this the better (once I split off the production history section, I'll be nominating it for GA, and hopefully FA eventually), but if it's tangential to a project's scope it shouldn't be on the worklist. Daniel Case 23:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up; I was just doing some menial tagging for the Project from an automated list of LGBT articles without the Project tag. As far as I know, if it's tagged LGBT in some way it should be part of the Project. But as there seems to have been some discussion about this particular article, I'm going to bring it up on the Project Talk page. Feel free to remove the tag if you wish, it can always be re-added or removed once any discussion conclude. thanks again. TAnthony 00:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
No problem. I'll put the tag in with the other project banners for now and watch how the discussion turns out; in the meantime I'll put it with the other project tags in the meantime. Daniel Case 00:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kray twins

Hi - I hope this finds you well! I have removed the LGBT category from the article on the Kray twins, but happy for it to be part of the LGBT project. Here's the logic - Ron was Gay/Bisexual, but Reggie was straight - so tagging Reggie as LGBT is factually incorrect. Having placed the correct date of birth/death tags on each blank feeder (Ronnie Kray and Reggie Kray), plus the LGBT tag on Ronnie's feeding page, the three pages that make up the Krays (the two blank feeding pages on Ron/Reg which just contain categories) and this article are now correctly categorised. Hope you understand, have also placed a piece on the article TalkPage. Rgds, - Trident13 09:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, but the article covers both people, so untagging it is as inaccurate as tagging it. AND, the article I referenced (and you removed) quotes Reg's gay lover from prison, so ... anyway, I'm no Kray expert, so I'll leave it. However, you can't have categories on redirects (I removed them from Reginald Kray and Ronald Kray yesterday). You can certainly put them back but someone else will probably remove them at some point without you noticing. I'm readding them to this article until you can find a solution. I understand that two separate articles is probably a waste. TAnthony 14:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I left a message on Talk:Kray twins regarding tha fact that you can't have categories on redirect pages; however, I just thought of an easy solution. You should make each twin's page a short stub, with all the approprate categories, guiding readers to the main article. Like:
Main article: Kray twins
Ronald Kray (24 October 1933 – 17 March 1995) was one of the Kray twins, the foremost organised crime leaders in London's Eastend during the 1950s and 60s. Ronald — commonly referred to as Ron or Ronnie — was bisexual, suffered from paranoid schizophrenia and had the more dominant personality of the two.
I can help you out or clean them up if you wish; also, there needs to be a source referenced regarding Ron's sexuality, or somebody from my WikiProject may remove the category! LOL. TAnthony 14:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Mummy

Just curious why you think The Mummy (novel) is LGBT literature? If I recall correctly, there's not that much of a gay-related theme to it? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess I was tagging some Anne Rice novels at the time; Henry in Mummy is gay but at the time there was no Category:Literature with LGBT characters. I'm of the mind that any LGBT content should be somehow noted for navigation/organizational purposes. But obviously the book doesn't need to be part of the Project, I made the fixes.
By the way, I didn't move any items into the Verification section of the Cat Search page because I assumed the bot would do it based on the tags, and that they would also come up on the Project's To Do list. If that's not the case, please let me know, I'd hate to be creating more work for ya. TAnthony 14:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, why isn't the To Do List bot picking up the items in your Category:LGBT articles with unsourced categories? Doing so may widen the pool of people pitching in. I know these are probably higher priority items, so if you're worried about them getting lost in the Verification section you can split them out in their own section. Just an idea. ;) TAnthony 16:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
That's a good idea - don't know when I'll add that code, but that seems like a good thing to add.
A couple minor points: a) The bot only runs once a week on this task, so I didn't have it looking for articles to re-verify. b) I noticed you're using the generic {{unsourced}} (though I had no idea you could add the reason like that). I created the template {{Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Category unsourced}} mostly because I wanted the unsourced statement to also put the article in Category:LGBT articles with unsourced categories - the generic one just puts it in Category:All articles lacking sources. Not a big deal. c) Thanks for chomping through the list! It just grows every week, but it's good to get it so small! Thanks! And why didn't you sign up to be a coordinator? You wield a mop well! :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 17:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I started using the {{unsourced}} template before I realized you'd created one; I like it because it obviously makes the articles come up in the To Do list, but it doesn't add the Category:LGBT articles with unsourced categories, which would be nice. You can totally change or add to the reason as long as the first word is "section" or "article" since that's how it's designed; I've been meaning to see about adding "category" but there may be a reason someone hasn't already.
By the way, I'm not lazy about classifying articles I tag, I just don't trust my judgment if an article isn't an obvious stub (though I'll sometimes rate Starts). And I think I might have tagged a few unsourced articles with the banner because the subjects were dead; didn't think they'd mind, LOL.
I thought about being a coordinator but I really never know when and if I'll have time to do anything; if at least three decent-sounding people hadn't submitted themselves, I would have. TAnthony 18:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah, OK, I just realized that the To Do List bot is of course only pulling in items already tagged into the project, which the unsourced articles shouldn't necessarily be — so my using the generic template is useless, the bulk of items won't come up on the To Do list after all. So I'll start using your template for people whose sexuality needs sourcing, since that'll separate them out for people in the Project who may actually do the work! TAnthony 20:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
That's kewl. Though unsourced people have their own list: Wikipedia:List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/To be sorted. That list was generated once and probably won't be again (well, maybe). So maybe we need a better way to figure out a) which LGBT articles are people, and b) which LGBT people are unsourced. Thoughts? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bot will do it right next time... Promise :)

I've updated the bot so it's not "Pease"-ing :) And the NPOV issue with Transgender probably should be put on the WT:LGBT page, since the bot won't include that when it runs again. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW, the bot takes the "requested articles" directly from Wikipedia:Requested articles/Social sciences and philosophy. So rather than adding them back in after each daily update, you could add them to WP:RA once and be done :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 13:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I know, but that "main" article has decriptive bits and article links that don't come through with the bot; I won't add them all the time, but thought it might help/encourage people to start the articles. TAnthony 16:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bit of help needed

Hi, how you doing? I noticed you have sorted out the Kray twins after some debate - thought I was right on the cats on the feeder articles: nice job! I need a bit of guidance. I wrote an stub article on Nigel Wrench, a radio presenter of a leading LGBT news show in the UK, who has been accused of gay rape. I have put bio and LGBT project tags on the article, but couldn't find an article or section on gay rape. There is a highly suspicious article (looks more like original research) on Male rape research (the title kinda gives it away!), but nothing on gay rape. Is there an article/section I could link to? Thank You! Best Regards, --Trident13 08:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cats on redirect pages

Hey, I see you've been removing LGBT categories on redirects. I have done this myself because I always thought redirects shouldn't have categories, until I recently read Wikipedia:Redirect#Categories for redirect pages. It does allow for categories if they are not creating redundant listings. As a matter of fact, this has been specifically accommodated by having redirects appear italicized in the target categories. It seems to me that it is important to have Ronald Kray listed in an LGBT category, but his main article is a combined one with his twin, who is not gay (so categorizing that article and thus both brothers as LGBT would be incorrect). As a matter of fact, this exact article is what got me to research this in the first place. This also applies to the Dynasty supporting characters Ted Dinard, Luke Fuller and Bart Fallmont, who are all part of one "minor characters" article (and don't require their own articles) but I feel should be listed under Category:Fictional gay men. What do you think? TAnthony 15:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't like cats on redirect pages. If the subject doesn't warrant an article all by themselves, then why should they be in a cat? For instance, if Ronald doesn't have his own page, then why do we want him in the "Bisexual people" category? The article on the twins could go in "LGBT history" or something like that, though.
And the same with the Dynasty characters - if they don't warrant their own page, why do we want them in the cats?
Part of my dislike of cats on redirects is strictly from an order-vs-chaos thing. Redirects aren't pages - they simply point to pages. Categorizing them gives them some sort of fuzzy standing as "almost-page", which just seems wrong. Silly of me, but you asked :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I see your point, and it's certainly not worth arguing about! But I think these articles are consolidated to be more efficient — separating the Kray twins would create two very similar articles and the Dynasty guys would be stubs — and you're omitting them from an applicable category on a technicality. Of course, I use categories to find articles, and for me personally it would be helpful to have these items there; I know some people have different ideas about what a category should be used for. Redirects are often for alternate/duplicate names/terms (like J.Lo redirecting to Jennifer Lopez), but that is not really the case here. And I know at least one user objects to the Kray twins article being classified as LGBT in its entirety because that's what got me into this, LOL. In any case, I'm not going to press the issue, but I'm wondering if you see the exception; I think these particular items are notable enough to be categorized LGBT. I don't necessarily agree that to be considered LGBT, and article/reference has to be a certain size or someone/something has to be a certain amount gay. TAnthony 19:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
My main issue isn't a technicality - it's notability. If the Dallas characters aren't notable enough to have an article, why have them in the cat?
The Kray twins are a different matter - Ron isn't notable by himself. And if the other editor disagrees with the LGBT banner (or cat), he hasn't seen the movie - talk about homoeroticism! I think that article (not the redirect) could legitimately be put in an LGBT cat - and have our banner. Maybe we should get a third opinion? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Don't make me split out the Dynasty guys into their own articles just to thwart you! LOL, I'm cool with keeping them as is. And the Kray editor was fine with the combined article being tagged with the Project banner (and it is currently), he just didn't like them both in the category. So, I will let it go and all is well. Boy, you're tough. ;) TAnthony 19:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Conviction :) I spend a lot of time (too much) on the cats and banners, so I feel strongly about them :) But seriously, shouldn't the Krays be in an LGBT cat? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Probably, but only one was gay. But hey, do it if you wish and make your argument later if you have to. ;) TAnthony 02:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:TV list class

Hey, sorry for my ignorance on class vs. type in this case, another WikiProject I am more actively involved in puts "list" under "class." Anyway, sorry again for the extra work I created for you, and thanks for the fix. TAnthony 15:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem, it happens quite often. I specifically changed this for WP:TV because WP:1.0 doesn't have a class=list. And they are right, because List is not a "quality" of an article. This method follows some of the WP:MILHIST conventions and I think it should be more useful in the future. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Television tags

Hmm, in my opinion, the Soap Opera WikiProject is a "child" of the Television WikiProject, so there's no need to list both projects on the talkpages. I see it sort of like categories: If you have a child category on a page, there's no need to also list the parent category. --Elonka 06:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, it's probably redundant to have both the TV and Soap projects listed on soap articles; however, TV Project is currently larger and more active, and I figured adding these articles directly would increase the visibility of the articles themselves as well as the Soap Opera Project, encouraging more editing and participation.
By the way, I'll try to work on a potential barnstart this week, we can discuss. TAnthony 07:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I understand your reasoning, and I appreciate your work, but I'd still recommend removing the TV WikiProject template. It's already *such* a huge category, it wouldn't make sense for every one of its child wikiprojects to also include that template. We should follow the lead of other television shows that aren't doubled. --Elonka 07:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I see your point, so I am not "double-tagging" any articles I have tagged for the Soaps project since you've voiced your concern. I can go back and AWB the WP:TV tags out of the doubled articles, but its a big job and I won't get to it right away. In the meantime, perhaps it will drive a little traffic our way. TAnthony 16:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP Soaps membership

Hey there, before we're at each other's throats over the issue of tense (LOL), do you have any ideas about how to recruit more members to the Soaps project? Many soap articles are such a mess, all kinds of random users are constantly changing and twisting articles — there are so many guidelines and policies that are needed, but we can't really come up with and enforce these things with 13 people. I was thinking about just going through edit histories and inviting people manually, but ... TAnthony 20:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not mad at all. I still think you're amazing, and I can go either way on the tense thing, I just want there to be a consensus.  :) As for other members, I have some ideas, but it might be better if we could chat directly... Do you use IMs? --Elonka 21:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the delayed response; I am on IM but hardly use it. My AIM username is xtommy and I'm actually on right now if you're awake. I'm not sure of the time diff ... TAnthony 02:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Past vs. present tense

[edit] Wikipedia:Peer review/Pauline Fowler#Tense

Tenses are incorrect, see MoS (WP:TENSE). Matthew 18:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It happened in the past in an ongoing serial, it should be in past tense. I feel this is somewhat backed-up by the new rule saying that character pages don't need spoiler tags, so therefore it is perfectly reasonable that they are written in the past tense. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 19:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
That argument is still unconvincing as to why a creative work should be written in the past tense (and I'm unsure what this has to do with spoilers). Matthew 19:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to have this argument with you again, Matthew, I'm going to try and get the policy changed to say that past characters and past TV shows can be written about in past tense, which makes sense according to the language of English. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 20:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
As WP:TENSE is a guideline, not a policy, I feel that Pauline Fowler should be written in past tense as EastEnders is an ongoing serial, and therefore I feel that pages like Pauline Fowler should not follow this guideline. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 23:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand why an "ongoing" show warrants past tense. What does that have to do with anything? I understand that past tense "feels right" primarily because of the soap magazines and other summaries we're used to, but the whole point of the present tense policy is to stylistically separate fiction from actual events. This is especially important in articles like this one, where the character's onscreen actions are described along with real-world analysis of the show (casting, impact, etc). Further, the fact that a show exists in a tangible medium (film/videotape) that can be replayed keeps it perpetually "in the present," while by comparison a real-life event can never be relived. TAnthony 03:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
If the tense is going to be a serious problem (one that stops us reaching our goals), I will work my way through the in-universe sections and change it all to present tense. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 18:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, having made the changes, I feel the policy is correct and all of WPEE's articles should be written this way. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 18:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
In a quick look-over of the article, I would disagree that the tense is incorrect. I am an advocate of present tense for fiction, and the "Storyline" sections seem to be in present tense. The "Character creation and development" section (especially "Narrative, impact and progression") discusses the character/storylines in an overview perspective, with behind-the-scenes analysis; past tense is totally appropriate here. I think the article was actually carefully constructed with tense in mind. TAnthony 20:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Aha, it seems that I am looking at the article after improvement by AnemoneProjectors. In any case, it looks great, I'll try to do a more intensive reading soon. TAnthony 21:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

As I write this, the in-universe portion of the Pauline Fowler article remains in present tense, as it should. See further discussion of the issue (and some mention of this article) at:

Even if you disagree with the tense, if we want this article rise to FA status, it needs to conform to the guidelines for fiction (present tense), even if an "ongoing series exception" is created. Truthfully, a few users can't set this exception and expect it to become policy, especially when there is no convincing argument except that "present tense is awkward." I will say again here what I've written a few times in other locations: it doesn't matter if we're talking about 22 years of storyline, fictional events and references need to be stylistically differentiated from real-life ones. In context, a present-tense summary is not awkward if events are portrayed chronologically. TAnthony 18:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#past vs. present tense

You are all treating the soap operas as if they are real rather than works of fiction. The time something airs is irrelevant; the episodes still exist despite the fact that they have already run. Ideally, the article on that character should include lots and lots of out-of-universe material, which can use the past tense (how the actress played the part, how the character was created, how critics reacted. Any narration of on-screen drama should be present tense. Use phrasing such as "In Episode 21, she does this this and this" to get around any oddness from using present tense. — Brian (talk) 01:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes I quite agree Brian, and discussion on this topic seems to reveal some fundamental misunderstandings among a great many contributors concerning the function and use of tense in encyclopedic writing. In my debates on this issue on the Lord of the Rings page, the main defence of past tense for the synopsis is the argument that it should be consistent with the tense of in-universe articles, such as War of the Ring. But to me the difference between these two types of article is perfectly clear, since the latter is about an in-universe event/person/etc. and the former is about a real-world publication. Genedecanter 03:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Wanting to write a plot synopsis in past tense is not treating fiction as if it is real, it's just treating the storyline as a past storyline, which it is. Equally, writing in present tense will not make the words that are written appear less real, at least not to me. When i'm reading something in present tense I dont instantly think "oh that must be fiction".
It is just a question of preference, but it's one that is shared by many editors and I think the project should allow for exceptions to the tense rule. Some synopses just read more coherently when written in past tense. Also, using episode numbers in the text is virtually impossible in the case of a long running soap opera. The information isnt avaliable and even if it were the numbers run into their thousands, not to mention that events occur over different episodes, which are condensed in the text — one small paragraph might contain months worth of episodes for instance. The article would be filled with numerous long numbers, which would just break up the text and make it awkward to read.
So long as an article clearly defines the storylines section (what is in universe and what is out of universe material) then it really shouldn't matter. Gungadin 16:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Another reason that soaps should use past tense, is because they're routinely referenced to real-time, not in-universe time. For example, "Pauline Fowler died in 2006," "Luke and Laura were married in 1987." To change that to present tense would sound bizarre: "Pauline Fowler dies in 2006," "Luke and Laura marry in 1987"? We can't say, "In episode 21," because soaps don't work like that. --Elonka 17:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, "Luke and Laura marry in 1987" sounds just fine to me; in context, if you're reading a plot synopsis that spans years, you are following along chronologically. So it is entirely appropriate to write, for example: "Laura arrives in Port Charles in 1976. She does some stuff. She meets Luke, and they ultimately marry in 1987 to much fanfare." (pardon the bad writing, LOL).
As I've just noted at Wikipedia:Peer review/Pauline Fowler/archive2, some of you seem to be missing the point of the present tense "policy," which is to stylistically separate fiction from actual events. I understand that past tense "feels right" primarily because of the soap magazines and other summaries we're used to, but those synopses only cover the in-universe events. In an article here, we are presumably discussing both onscreen action and real-world occurances/analysis/impact. As someone noted above, the fact that a show exists in a tangible medium (film/videotape) that can be replayed keeps it perpetually "in the present," while by comparison a real-life event can never be relived. Laura disappears after the wedding (present tense) because Genie Francis left the show (past tense).
A decent example is the Alexis Colby article; in-universe events are described in present tense, and it is not awkward. Real-life behind-the-scenes discussion is in past tense. TAnthony 03:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
How about if we allow for both styles? After all, a guideline is just that, a guideline, and not a policy. We've suggested a possible way of writing a soap opera guideline on the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas#The question of tense, which allows for different ways of handling it. Anyone interested in the discussion is welcome to participate. --Elonka 20:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I still think y'all are making a mistake (the change to your project guideline will presumably go through with or without my argument against). If you're having trouble avoiding past tense in your articles, it simply means you are including too much in-universe material. If long-running comic book characters can have their articles in present tense, so can soap characters. You simply need to make the occasional reference to the real world. "During this story arc, Luke kills Laura and escapes to Mexico." "In the episodes written by Mayers, Steven is portrayed as a cold, calculating villain." "Jackson and Morgaine first kiss in the holiday episode from 1987. Fans reacted by writing letters of protest to ABC." It's all in how you present information. — Brian (talk) 22:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I just thought I should mention here as well, with regards to Pauline Fowler, I changed the tenses of the storylines sections to present tense last night and I think it works fine, so I now agree with this guideline! — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 10:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Pauline Fowler

Present tense works fine, in fact now that I've changed it all, I think it looks better. If I missed any words, please correct me. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 18:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Although I didn't change the lead paragraph. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 19:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I've added some new guideline wording at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas#The question of tense, which will hopefully satisfy everyone? Please comment on whether or not you like it, thanks. --Elonka 20:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Present is looking ok. I do prefer it in past tense but i'm not opposed to it being like this. One thing though, arent we now meant to say Pauline Fowler is a fictional character if we're using present? Gungadin 23:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I think so, but as I said, I didn't touch the lead paragraph so other parts of it may require changes. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 08:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm reverting this to past tense, as you did this in the middle of discussions when no cnsensus that satisfies everyone has been reached. It loosk awful in present tense. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 12:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but it does not look awful, and no consensus is needed because present tense is current policy. I've also noted this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas#The question of tense. Please see my arguments there and at the Manual of Style discussion. You're missing the point of the policy, which is to stylistically differentiate between fictional and real-life events. This is especially important in an article like this that contains both. Take a look at the starter article Alexis Colby, it's easier to assess the past/present use there. I know your used to the past tense uses in soap opera magazine summaries, etc, but those do not contain real-world analysis, etc. TAnthony 15:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Trampikey, I was the one who changed the tenses, and it does not look awful, in fact I think it reads better. And if you want this to reach FA status then you'll have to get used to it being in present tense. Consensus was already reached when the manual of style was written. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 21:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please, no edit wars

Folks, please, let's not go around reverting each other. Whichever way the article is, let's just leave it and talk about things. The world won't come to an end because the article's in one state or another for a few days while we sort things out and figure where the consensus is. However, I can guarantee that if this article shows a history of edit wars, it's not going to get promoted to FA status. Stability is one of the key requirements for WP:FA. For now, how about we hold a quick Straw Poll, to see where everyone stands? --Elonka 21:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Please indicate your opinion on the WP:TENSE issue as regards the Pauline Fowler article. This is not a vote, but I would like to get a rough indication to see opinions. Please add your opinion below, in a single paragraph.

  • No strong preference, but leaning towards present tense. Personally, I don't care that much either way. But if WP:TENSE says to use Present Tense, and that kind of format will help us to reach WP:FA status, that's fine with me. --Elonka 21:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Present I do prefer past, but it's an uphill struggle trying to get things like this changed, and i'm a little tired of working against the majority of editors who think present tense is better. One of the reasons that Lou Beale failed to get GA was due to incorrect tense, so it obviously has an influence. It's easier just to adhere to the guideline in my opinion.Gungadin 21:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Present tense for fictional portions, as evidenced by my complete lack of restraint in making arguments for it, LOL. However, although I am basically opposed to changing the WP:TENSE guidelines, I will not fight whatever consensus is reached regarding this article. And thanks for your calm head with this, Elonka. — TAnthony 21:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Present tense per guidelines. Although I was originally opposed to this, having seen the article in present tense I now believe it makes more sense to do it this way. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 00:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Past tense. (Apologies in advance for any typos - bad keyboard and limited time - also, I'll try to put across a coherent argument without letting emotions get in the way, but I am really angry about this (for reasons I'll explain later)) It is incorrect English to say that events happening over a 22 year span all happened at once (i.e. in the present). For example, to say that "EastEnders begins" is incorrect. EastEnders began. In 1985. The article as it is at the moment (in present tense) reads like EastEnders is a film - with a set end, which we know it is not - it keeps running. It is my strong belief that events that happened in the past in something that runs in real time should also be written in real time (i.e. past tense for things that hapened in the past) - an argument that I have seen all three editors above use at different times. One of the reasons I am angry about this is that certain editors seem to have such a disregard for our language and the way it should be written, that they are willing to forget all about grammar and write this article (which, in my opinion, and as stated by Gungadin elsewhere) is harder to read than it was before, in past tense - just to get this article to FA status - how glory-seeking is that!? Don't get me wrong, it'd be great for this article to get to FA status, but to totally forget about good grammar just because the policy pushers (may I add that WP:TENSE is a guideline, not a policy) say that it needs to be in present tense juts takes the biscuit. WP:TENSE was obviously decided without taking into account real time series - something myself and Elonka have raised on various talk pages to try and change this, but as soon as I have gone away it seems everyone has changed their minds and are happy to have this article written in bad, hard to read English, just to get it to FA status. I say we should have it in readable tense - past - and screw tha FA status. If the voters can't see this is better in past tense, at least we all know it is deserving of FA status anyway - AND readable. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 11:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    • When you're watching the first episode (which you can sometimes), EastEnders begins. It's not an issue of grammar and it's no more difficult to read now than it was before. Read the whole page through instead of one sentence at a time and it all makes perfect sense. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 17:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I for one, and Gungadin, find it harder and less coherent to read. "She begins to rely on Mark more than ever" doesn't make sense for one, as they're both dead, they don't rely on each other anymore, because they can't. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 18:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Ah, now I see, you are reading it very literally, as if we are saying that she relies on Mark in 2007. But in context, it is written "In 2002 Pauline receives an anonymous letter" and then "She begins to rely on Mark more than ever" and then "his death in 2004." Certainly whenever a new year begins the year should be noted somewhere in the action to assure clarity, but to anyone reading that section or paragraph, the chronology is clear. That said, I think we all respect each other's opinions here, and your point ius well-taken. TAnthony 18:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • And saying that I read it literally must mean that other readers will read it that way also. To use a paragraph with a date reference: In 2002, Pauline doesn't recieve a letter, because 2002 will never happen again, 2002 was five years ago. It has already happened. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 18:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, I do think it's just you; what reader will not realize that 2002 already happened? Look, I know you think it's awkward, but that doesn't make you any more right than we are. We will never agree, and there probably is no ":right" and "wrong." But your argument is flawed. TAnthony 18:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The major flaw in your argument is that you are saying we should write about past events in present tense. We don't write that "two planes fly into the twin towers in 2001" or "Tony Blair is elected in 1997" - these are past events (albeit non-fiction) but are still written in past tense - and as EastEnders runs in eal time, I see no reason why it should be treated differently just because it is fictional. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 18:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • This is exactly the distinction to be made between fiction and reality; real-life 2002 can never happen again, so if Wendy Richards had a baby in 2002 she can never have that baby in 2002 again. But this is a fictional work that exists in perpetuity, like a book, so at any point when you are exposed to it, it occurs "again." Fictional events are not really events that have an expiration. TAnthony 18:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Only certain episodes of EastEnders are ever repeated - and as the serial has not ended yet, it still continues, therefore creates its own history, which happened in its past. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 18:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
It's not about repeats per se; your argument is based on the presumption that the "events" occurred on the day they were broadcast, but these are not real events, they never actually occurred, and conceptually they can "occur" again at any time because they exist in a tangible medium. It is exactly as if it were a book, that may or may not ever be read again. Tony Blair can never be elected in 1997 again.
LOL, we can argue this forever, I appreciate that you're as passionate about your opinion as I am! I said I'd stop arguing this point, and so I will. ;) TAnthony 19:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Don't the BBC Three documentaries describe events in present tense? — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 19:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas#The question of tense

We've come up with an interesting situation, that I'd like to get other editors' opinions on. According to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Presentation of fictional material and Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Check your fiction, articles about fictional works should always be written in the present tense. See those two links for examples. But in the case of soap operas, this may not be the best way to handle things. For example, should we use, "In 1987, Luke and Laura were married," or "In 1987, Luke and Laura marry"? "Pauline Fowler is a character in EastEnders, or since the character was killed off, "Pauline Fowler was a character in EastEnders"? This is actually a hotly-debated issue on Wikipedia right now, so we need to decide if we want to go along with the "present tense" system, or argue a different method for soap operas. What do you think? --Elonka 21:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the guideline should be changed to consider soap operas and other ongoing serials, as the events have happened in the past and the shows still run in real time, therefore past events should be reported in real time, in the past tense. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 21:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Looks like the main discussion on this is going on at the Manual of Style talkpage. I encourage everyone to participate there. --Elonka 17:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I recommend that we come up with a guideline specifically for soap articles, which we include here at the WikiProject page. If we have approval here, then we can see about maybe adding a pointer to it from WP:WAF. Here's my suggested wording, please feel free to critique:

In most cases on fictional subjects, the present tense should be used, see WP:TENSE. However, with longterm soap operas, which can often run for decades and never have any repeats, it may sometimes be more appropriate to use past-tense when describing a storyline, since the histories are often tied to "real-world" timelines. As such, our recommended WikiProject guideline for soap operas is to use present tense, but past tense is allowed. Whichever version is used, it should be consistent throughout a single article.

How's that sound? --Elonka 19:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I have still not heard a satisfactory argument as to why past tense is more appropriate for longterm series; but of course, I've made my case at the Manual of Style discussion. The guideline above is fine, but I feel uncomfortable about setting "controversial" guidelines like this when we are only a group of about 13, and I'm not even sure all are active. I don't think we can enforce it (or any guideline) anyway with such small numbers.
Maybe I'm also not understanding why there is such a push for this; is it so that soap articles already written in past tense don't have to be changed, or does it have something to do with the Pauline Fowler peer review? It seems like some editors just find writing in present tense awkward, and that's a silly reason to institute policy. Fictional and real-word events need to be differentiated stylistically. Just my opinion, anyone else? TAnthony 20:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
The core issue right now is the Pauline Fowler article. It's already at GA status (in past tense). When submitted for Peer Review, the "tense" issue was brought up. We'd like to get the article to FA, but if this is going to stop it, then it would behoove us to come up with a clear guideline, and make sure that the article is in accordance with that guideline. --Elonka 20:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I had a feeling; in that case, I'm not against your suggested guideline for the time being. Also, I've just made the following comment at Wikipedia:Peer review/Pauline Fowler/archive2:

In a quick look-over of the article, I would disagree that the tense is incorrect. I am an advocate of present tense for fiction, and the "Storyline" sections seem to be in present tense. The "Character creation and development" section (especially "Narrative, impact and progression") discusses the character/storylines in an overview perspective, with behind-the-scenes analysis; past tense is totally appropriate here. I think the article was actually carefully constructed with tense in mind.

I haven't analyzied the entire article line by line, but the tenses actually seem perfectly fine to me. TAnthony 20:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
It seems that AnemoneProjectors has made tense changes to Pauline Fowler, and I was looking at the result. So this may now be a non-issue as far as the review goes. TAnthony 21:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I think your guideline looks good Elonka. having seen the conversion on the Pauline article, i dont think it reads too badly in present tense though. It is a little weird and I still prefer past tense as I think it reads better, but I suppose I could get used to it.Gungadin 23:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I have no strong feeling either way, and could also live with present-tense. Should we change the guideline to recommend that exclusively though? Or still advise that either form is acceptable? --Elonka 01:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Present tense looks awful, doesn't make sense, and makes it sound as if EastEnders is a film. I have reverted the changes as I am not happy with them and I think they were done prematurely without proper discussion (I'm sorry I haven't been able to have much input, I'm away from home) - present tense looks absolutely ridiulous and reads awkwardly as well. EastEnders is not a film - it happens in real time and to describe 22 years of events as all happening at the same time (in the present) is ludicrous. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 12:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not trying to start a revert war, but no consensus is needed because present tense is the current policy for fiction. And I know you are a strong advocate for past tense, but it is not as awkward as you make it sound. It no more makes events happen "all at the same time" than past tense does. TAnthony 15:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
By the way, I like your thingy up there, Elonka, it seems fine to me - allow past tense - it makes grammatical sense. (Oh God that wasn't meant to rhyme.) -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 12:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it may be wise to allow for past tense in specific cases. For instance, the Eastenders project has lists of minor characters (List of minor EastEnders characters 1985-1989) and the information included is not necessarily in chronological order. Describing each character in present would be confusing in this case, especially if a person were to read every bio on the page. I think present tense is fine when the storyline section is exclusively about one character, but it doesnt work so well when there are several combined like this.Gungadin 01:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Here I go again: within each character's section, their storyline synopsis should be in its own chrono order and in present tense, perhaps with the year of their first appearance mentioned in the beginning (although these years are clearly noted in the infobox). It will read fine no matter what order the characters themselves are in; see Dynasty minor characters. LOL, I know this is a painstaking process that may never get done, but I just had to put it out there! TAnthony 03:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Trampikey

Hi, I just left a bunch of comments all over the place about the Pauline Fowler article (Talk:Pauline Fowler, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas#The question of tense, the Manual of Style discussion and Wikipedia:Peer review/Pauline Fowler#Tense) and I wanted you to know that I'm not trying to start a revert war or force my opinion. But the truth is, present tense is current policy and the Pauline Fowler article will not make it to FA status with past tense, even if we add some "soap opera guideline." At first I preferred past tense, but with more exposure to Wikipedia articles and editing, I've come to see how important the differentiation of tenses is. Forget what your used to, look at it from an analytical perspective. TAnthony 15:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Minor quibble: Present tense is a guideline, not policy. But, guideline-adherence can indeed be enough to make or break an article's rise to FA status. I recommend that we work very hard on coming up with a consensus guideline that works for everyone, rather than trying to make a black & white distinction. I'm sure there's a compromise in the middle somewhere.  :) --Elonka 21:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Yep, I agree, a compromise needs to be made, but at the moment (as I've said on Talk:Pauline Fowler) I don't care about FA status, I care about good grammar and that the article is readable. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 11:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted you to know that I have made my last argument regarding the Pauline Fowler article, and will not interfere with whatever the consensus is. That said, I've just read your comment re: the vote and though I of course understand that you prefer the readability of past tense, I still can't wrap my head around what it being an ongoing show has to do with anything, as opposed to being a film with an and. How is "As Star Wars begins, Princess Leia is putting her hair into buns" OK to you and the same EastEnders phrase is not? And I kind of resent your saying that present tense is "bad English," I could get you a list of novels written in it. TAnthony 15:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Tudors

Please bring the episodes up to the standards set by WP:EPISODE before bringing those back or making more. They need information like reception and development backed by secondary sources to exist. TTN 01:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fox and His Friends

Sure. I borrowed it from my local library as it seemed intringuing, and I'm well glad I saw it. I need to check if they have more of his films! I have to say though, I find it odd that they could release this film back in 1974 - maybe it was censored? A section about the critical reception would be interesting I think.Zigzig20s 05:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] userbox

Thanks I guess. Part of me is wondering whether this is 1984-ish or not (everyone can see how much I've edited), but then most things are these days, aren't they? Oh well. Thanks for that then.Zigzig20s 05:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] hey willpower

Hi. I created the article for hey willpower, and since you're the only other person who's contributed to it, and you're all experienced and barnstarred-out around here, I was wondering if you knew a way to help me with something.  :) I've cited the same articles a few times, and each time they show up seperately in the references list. Is there a way to consolidate those? Can you do something to the < ref > tags or something that'll make multiple citations of the same source to go to the same link in the references section? -- AvatarMN 04:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, category lists that Will Schwartz and Tomo Yasuda are showing up on list them by first names instead of last. Did I do something wrong when I created them? I tried, and found that moving "Tomo Yasuda" to "Yasuda, Tomo" didn't seem right. -- AvatarMN 05:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Yep, I can solve both of your problems, LOL. I'll fix the sort thing now, and the reference thing tomorrow. ;) TAnthony 06:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Refs all fixed, it does look a lot better that way. Thanks for writing the article. TAnthony 17:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Soap Operas

Glad to have you aboard! Please feel free to participate in the current discussions at the WikiProject talkpage. It had been inactive for quite some time, and we're just now trying to get it back up to speed this month. Feel free to move things around as much as you'd like!  :) --Elonka 00:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much for all your work on the WikiProject! You're also much much better than I am at the graphical stuff. Along those lines, do you think you could put together a barnstar or other award for us to hand out? If you're not sure, throw together a couple different possibilities, and then we can discuss which one we like best? I'm thinking maybe something like a "Hollywood Walk of Fame" star, but if you think you've got the perfect design, go for it! Thanks, Elonka 18:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP Soaps membership

Hey there, before we're at each other's throats over the issue of tense (LOL), do you have any ideas about how to recruit more members to the Soaps project? Many soap articles are such a mess, all kinds of random users are constantly changing and twisting articles — there are so many guidelines and policies that are needed, but we can't really come up with and enforce these things with 13 people. I was thinking about just going through edit histories and inviting people manually, but ... TAnthony 20:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response; I am on IM but hardly use it. My AIM username is xtommy and I'm actually on right now if you're awake. I'm not sure of the time diff ... TAnthony 02:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I just signed onto AIM (invisibly), are you available? TAnthony 20:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not seeing you on my buddy list... Try to send me a message? My own SN is "elonka". --Elonka 22:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] =)

Marc Talk has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

[edit] OLTL minor edits

User talk:The Real One Returns
Just a note about your OLTL edits just now; the cast sections are always getting changed/reverted/changed over tiny edits like this, so I try to reach out when I can to stop the madness! To me, adding 2007 after every "coming" or "going" is unnecessary because this is a timely section and obviously the actor is not leaving Summer 2006 (already past) or Summer 2008 (who would care at this point). Also, as far as I know "th" isn't really used anywhere on Wikipedia with dates, probably because of user date preference settings. I'm not going to revert your edits or anything because I don't care that much, but people's watchlists get cluttered with the constant tiny changes back and forth on all the soap pages. TAnthony 06:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stop

Immediately cease converting WikiProjectBanners to WikiProjectBannerShell. Raul654 05:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Why? I'm basically doing it as a means to find non-complant templates and fix them. TAnthony 05:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Because WikiProjectBannerShell clutters up talk pages far more than WikiProjectBanners, and many people (including myself) dislike it greatly. As SatyrTN said earlier, the detente that has been established is that article tagged with one will not be converted to the other. Raul654 05:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Also, if you want to find non-complaint templates, copy them to a third page (a subpage in your namespace) and modify them there all you like. Raul654 05:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I understand it's a preference, and I hadn't realized a "détente" was established, but reverting every one of my like 10 measly conversions seems a little second-grade. I don't think anyone would have cared out of the 3600+ articles that still use WikiProjectBanners. But whatever. TAnthony 06:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terry McMillan

User talk:68.81.179.222
Hi, I'm a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies; among other things, we monitor for accuracy pages categorized in lesbian and gay categories. In order for you assert that Terry McMillan be categorized as a lesbian writer, you must provide a source (interview in which she says she is, etc.) Normally we might keep the category and tag the article with a request for a source, but the controversy surrounding her divorce indicates to me that she is straight and so I am removing the category again. Please do not re-add it without a reference. TAnthony 08:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WPBS

If you want, you can compare Category:WikiProject banners with Template:WikiProjectBannerShell/Compliant banner list :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 06:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section heading capitalization

Please note that your capitization of section headers is incorrect per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Section headings; ONLY the first word should be capitalized, unless the phrase contains proper nouns. Also, ampersands ("&" sign) are frowned upon. TAnthony 14:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Falcon Crest

User talk:80.47.254.212
Thanks so much for rewriting some of the newest edits to Falcon Crest; User:Italianlover07 is always adding info which is altogether odd and poorly written. TAnthony 15:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject banners

Thanks for all the conversion work; you beat me to the snooker ones. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, no problem, it's actually a calming, near-mindless task that also satisfies my borderline OCD tendencies that have arisen from continued exposure to Wikipedia, LOL. Plus, the bad attitude of certain Anti-WikiProjectBannerShell editors has urged me to make as many templates compliant as possible and thus eliminate their ability to use that in an argument.
Sorry about the snookers. ;) TAnthony 14:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Motorcycling

Can you explain the edit you made to the {{Motorcycling}} template? I don't understand what you did here and would like to learn about it as I don't know much about templates even though I have made a few includinh this one. Cheers ww2censor 00:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

My edits to the template enable the use of {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}, which allows multiple WikiProject banners to be "nested" on a Talk page. See Talk:T. E. Lawrence for an example which includes {{Motorcycling}}; it's a great space-saver, but the banners are still accessible. And as you can see at Talk:Steve McQueen, the edits have no affect on the appearance of the template when {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} is not used. TAnthony 01:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adding {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}

Hey there! I'm glad to see you doing such hard work on the Template:WikiProjectBannerShell/Cleanup project, and I'm impressed to see that you got AWB to do some of your work for you, much like I have with my own browser. However, I'm somewhat concerned about tertiary edits like this one.

Please keep in mind that different WikiProjects have different standards for classes, and you could potentially get into a lot of trouble just applying a given class to all WikiProject banners willy-nilly. Just trying to look out for you; feel free to correct me if I'm wrong or if I'm viewing the situation incorrectly. Thanks! — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 05:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, but as you may know, AWB still requires more-or-less manual edits, and I look at/tweak every one. The stub/start classification isn't part of my "replace" formula; I only assessed a limited number of articles to which I added WPBS, and I did it manually (pretty much because I came across funky templates or auto=yes boxes as I applied WPBS). I know diff projects have diff specs, but a stub is a stub and for the most part a start is a start. In the case of Guilford, I assure you it was not an automatic classification. I've got over 14,000 edits to prove I kinda know what I'm doing, LOL! TAnthony 05:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Just being careful; it's better to be safe than sorry. Thanks for clearing that up! — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 06:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Soap opera moves

While many of your recent soap article moves may be technically correct, I think you're going a bit overboard. Since characters marry and divorce so frequently, the convention with these articles is usually to stick with names by which the characters are commonly known, and not necessarily change and move them every time they marry or whatever. I'm not going to change Jessica Buchanan back, but she's been married to Antonio Vega for like 5 minutes and they're already apart; all you're doing is making things more complicated. TAnthony 16:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia was designed to deliver facts and considering that soap characters marry and divorce frequently, thats what we are hear to do, edit the profiles and make their names, latest recaps, etc., known to the general wikipedia browser. If (example) Alan Williams marrys Jenny Ray for even one day, it is known that within that day, Jenny Ray will be known as Jenny Ray Williams. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TimothyBanks (talk • contribs) 16:41, June 16, 2007
Yes, the names are valid and should be noted, but not necessarily in the name of the article. Articles don't need to be moved every time someone marries or divorces, especially since some characters aren't really known by their "technical" married names, etc. Constant moving is a waste of resources and clogs up watchlists. Time can be better spent expanding and actually copyediting the many poorly-written soap articles. That said, many of your moves are probably appropriate at this time, so thanks for that. TAnthony 14:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please help with Evangeline Williamson

There is an edit war with the Evangeline Williamson article with two new users Sorceress06 and Babygurl32, and they keep erasing some of her Lover/Relationships--Migospia†♥ 00:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Links and redirects

Hi, thanks for your contribs to the List of One Life to Live characters, but when you change links (for example, Kassie DePaiva to Kassie Wesley DePaiva) be aware that you are creating links to articles that don't exist. I've created a redirect in this case, but consider using the proper format Kassie Wesley DePaiva to avoid redirects. TAnthony 20:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Soap barnstar

Whoops! Sorry about missing your message, I've been busier than usually lately, and I think your comment got buried by some other messages that came right after it. Sorry about not replying sooner. Anyway, I think the image looks fine, but I'll also freely admit that I'm not an art person... I'd recommend starting a thread at WP:SOAPS (and also drop a line at WP EastEnders), and see if other folks like it. If everyone's okay on it, then we can formalize.  :) --Elonka 19:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Before we get into an edit war

Regarding Rome (TV series), you have twice reverted my inclusion of a link. I don't want to get into an edit war on this and would like to come to a compromise. I believe the link is relevant to the article since it points to a list of shows cancelled (or ended) along with Rome. The list was created because categories are not as easily found as are articles and editors do not always include articles in all of the appropriate categories.

Yes, I created the linked-to article but that doesn't automatically make my desire to build the web somehow wrong (it seems you may have itimated as much in the summary accompanying your last reversion).

If you think the link is inappropriate when associated with "final season", where is a better place? The fact is, no well-written article is likely to contain the term "List of television series cancelled after 2006 season". So, unless it is linked using another word or term, the list is going to be an orphan. --Wordbuilder 13:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm certainly not trying to battle with you, but I thought my last edit was a compromise (despite my snarky edit summary). I listed the link under "See also" because it really is not the expected destination of a "final season" link; I would expect to go to a page for Rome season 2. Frankly, and please don't take offense, I don't think your list is particularly useful; all the same info is already collected in Category:2007 television program series endings. The fact that you can find no better way to link it should tell you that. But I am not the King of Wikipedia (which is why I limited my edits to the Rome article), so if you feel that strongly about it by all means put the link back and see what others think. I will, of course, reserve the right to comment on Talk pages. ;) TAnthony 16:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I didn't notice you had added the link to the "See also" section. (I should pay more attention.) That seems like a fair compromise. Keep up the good work. --Wordbuilder 16:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vacation

I will be out of the country with limited access to the 'net from June 23 through June 30, though I'll be checking in when I can. Try not to mess up all my favorite articles while I'm gone, LOL. TAnthony 12:34, June 22, 2007 (UTC)