Talk:The New and Improved Carl Morrissey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 2006-10-27. The result of the discussion was keep.


This article falls within the scope of the The 4400 WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of The 4400. 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.

[edit] Article name

Per the television episode naming conventions, episode titles should not be disambiguated unless there is another article bearing the same name, and if there is, the series name should simply be placed in parentheses. This article name is not ambiguous, and naming conventions of other articles do not necessarily set the standard, but rather official guidelines. I only changed this one so far as this was the particular article I was working on. Shannernanner 15:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems logical for consist. to append the suffix to any article in the 4400 series of articles, alot of TV shows append a suffix like The 4400, I propose making a proposal to ammend the NC guidelines with a clause stating "Although if a consensus exists for a suffix then a page should not be renamed, or if a series of articles was started with a suffix then (a) page(s) should not be renamed without a consensus." thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
You may propose such if you wish, but I do not find such disambiguation necessary. It is the guideline throughout Wikipedia not to disambiguate unless necessary; if someone makes a series of unambiguous articles on flowers with "(flower)" appended or on rock stars with "(rock star)" appended I would feel the same way. Shannernanner 16:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Well in a sense its not disambiguation, its just a formatted series of articles, if however we reach a consensus to remove the suffix then I would support that out come, ill leave a message at the 4400 project asking if anyone ahs time to join in the discussion. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 17:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
It seems like, after a closer look, there are also a lot of TV shows that don't append a suffix like The 4400.Category:Simpsons episodes, most notably. If existing naming conventions already address this specifically and say to not include the suffix, then i'm in for not including it. The remaining TV shows which do include the suffix will probably have them removed eventually anyway. --`/aksha 12:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I am going to move the article back to the proper naming convention per the guideline; if the guideline is changed or an exception is made in this case, it can be moved back. Shannernanner 00:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
There is an RfC for naming here; please do not rename any of these at present without a consensus . thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
If you are referring to this article, I stated my reasons for moving it. Shannernanner 21:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
You moved it back, contrary to the current guideline, despite what I and another user just said? Please explain how this is fruitful. Also, you did not move the talk page. Shannernanner 21:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I left the talk page here to allow conversation to stay here.. the precedant of articles at present i to leave the suffix.. should we gauge a consensus to remove the suffix then by all means remove it, but we need a consensus first ;)! thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Articles and their talk pages should be moved jointly. Moving the talk page does not delete the text. According to the guideline episode names do not need extraneous disambiguation. As I said, this is why I moved it back, and if the guideline were changed or an exception made, it could be moved. A consensus has already been reached on this point, as a guideline exists; however, another editor has put for the same opinion as well. Shannernanner 21:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits

Please cite a reliable reason for reverting my changes to the article. The fact that I can back up all of my edits with guidelines and precedents seems to trump your "reasoning." To be absolutely clear, here are the exact reasons for my last edit:

For the "Plot synopsis" and references, see my talk page.
The footnotes do not need to be resized unless the section has become very large; this is the recommendation on the Wikipedia:Footnotes page. Shannernanner 23:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
And for the record, you also reverted a text change that made the sentence more clear. Shannernanner 23:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Your iting a project that has a few members unto which a member has added a layout of how he believes a page should be set out, as you can see a style has emerged for 4400 episodes, you will also notice anything you have quoted are "guidelines" -- The footnotes are messy and long imo and hence the small tag was added to make it neat. If you wish to propose a new format for 4400 episode pages please present your idea and gauge a consensus.. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I do not see anything concrete in your reply which cites Wikipedia precedents, guidelines, or policy in backing up your revert. The definition of a "guideline" is a point of consensus which has been reached so often that it is implemented into Wikipedia. Shannernanner 23:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes and the guideline you cite (the TV ep. project) has no consensus.. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't because you say it doesn't, and your own opinion on format is more of a consensus than a collaborative project with a standardized format? I don't understand your reasoning. Shannernanner 23:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
It's patently obvious that the 4400 project has a standard format.. and on man/gal implementing a style does not equtate to it being used all over wikipedia. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 00:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I am not implementing my own style, and I believe you know that. I am using the standardized format listed at the wikiproject. Shannernanner 00:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Which of course is not a set in stone standard and also ahs no consensus backing it.. and there is already an established style for 4400 eps, just like there is for Doctor Who. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 00:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
How does the "style" of The 4400 episodes have "more" perceived consensus than the format established at the episode wikiproject? Please explain. Shannernanner 00:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Because it has been implemented here with only you so far wanting to change the format of pages and hence as this is controversial you require a consensus to restructure. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 00:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
That is not the answer to my question; its implementation has nothing to do with how consensus was reached in creating the format. If you will kindly answer my question, I will also have the information to reply to your last point. Shannernanner 00:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
It answers it perfectly to me -- if your asking a 2nd question then please rephrase your message to make more sense. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 00:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I am not asking a second question, I am requesting an answer to my first question. How does the "style" which is used on The 4400 episodes — implemented and upheld solely by you — have "more" perceived consensus than the format established at the collaborative episode wikiproject, which is used in numerous articles? Shannernanner 00:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
(/me repeats him self) - Because this style has been implemented accross all the 4400 pages to no opposition to date, you dont fix something thats not broke and if you wish to change it then you require a consensus. It is also pretty broad to say: "the format established at the collaborative episode wikiproject, which is used in numerous articles" - Established by whom? One person who decided to add it? You'll also find that style predates before it was added to the project so the "its at that project so ill force it upon this project" approach doesnt work. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 00:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Please quit accusing me of attacking "your" article. Every change does not require a consensus, and I was trying to clean up the article per its AfD discussion, not "ruin" it. The person(s) who added the format could probably be determined, but the point is moot, as you alone determined the format of The 4400 articles as far as I can tell; if your argument is that that format was not reached by consensus (though you have provided no evidence to the contrary), neither was this particular format. Shannernanner 00:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

As you have not replied in five days, I am going to return the article to the cleaned up version. I will not change the name until the discussion has concluded on the NC, though the article and talk page should certainly reside in the same namespace. Shannernanner 07:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I will allow it to "slide" - However small/tidy references are something I wont let slide and hence I have reimplemented them. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't normally like to jump into the middle of other people's conversation, but i really can't help it this time. Matthew Fenton, just because you created these articles and just becuase you lead the 4400 project, it does not give you ownership over the articles. People do not need your permission to make edits. And it's not up to you whether or not to allow things. You have no more authority here than any other article.
Something you two maybe should keep in mind - "when either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change" - Wikipedia:Manual of Style. --`/aksha 09:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm perfectly within my rights Shakla to tell Shane to get a consensus if he wishes to change the format fo every 4400 page.. as you said: "when either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change"
Also if people do wish to make disputed and controversial changes then yes they do require a consensus.. Period. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 10:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
As far as i can see, the said section first appeared as "notes" in this version, with normal sized text. But was then changed to "references" in this version to the style of using small text.
This is hardly a 'controversial' change that requires consensus. It's a simple disagreement between two different styles. Exactly what are you expecting when you ask for consensus? a dozen other wikipedians jumping in to show their agreement? When a grand total of 3 different editors have ever edited on this article (me and Xyrael don't count, since all we did was adding and removing an afd tag)? --`/aksha 10:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, this is utterly rediculus. "Because this style has been implemented accross all the 4400 pages to no opposition to date." Style implemented over all 4400 pages with no opposition? Looking at the other 4400 episode pages, there is a grand total of one other page with references and one other page with notes. the notes are written in normal size. And the the references, which are in small size, were added on 31 october.
There's probably no opposition because no one else cares. It doesn't seem like there're very many different people editing these articles does there? I'm reverting your last edit. If there's no sensible agreement, we go with whatever acceptable style was used first. --`/aksha 11:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
May I point out:
  1. There is a precedent stated on the Wikipedia:Footnotes page regarding using small footnotes when it is not needed; it was the reason I found it unnecessary, not a personal reason.
  2. I don't know why you are calling me "Shane."
  3. As Yaksha said, I added the notes, so even if this were simply a "disagreement between two styles," per the section the user cited the notes should stay as originally added.
  4. I was not inciting a drive to mass edit all of The 4400 articles in a particular style. If I, or anyone, were to edit all of them, however, per proper Wikipedia guidelines, it would not require consensus. Shannernanner 11:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
There is a precedant among articles to use "tidy references" - You would probably find a ration of 10:1 using tidy references, "Unlike policies, guidelines are usually more flexible and more likely to have exceptions and could be changed and improved more easily.", You and Shane tag teaming does not equate to a consensus among articles to adopt messy references. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 11:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
In other words, there are precedants for using both versions. In which case the quote from the manual of style nails this problem right on the head - when there are two equally acceptable styles, there's no reason to change between one and the other unless there's a significant reason to do so. We have two styles which are both acceptable within wikipedia. One was used to begin with. There was no reason to change it in the first place.
Don't use arguments like "You would probably find a ration of 10:1 using tidy references" unless you're really prepared to fish out some evidence for it. Me and Shannernanner do not constitute consensus, but you alone also does not constitute consensus. Normal text references being messy is your opinion, not a fact. Just deal with it. --`/aksha 13:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:The 4400 - 1x3 - The New and Improved Carl Morrissey.jpg

Image:The 4400 - 1x3 - The New and Improved Carl Morrissey.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) 02:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)