User talk:The Zig

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Light-year 2 Changes to pregnancy page. 3 Further changes 4 Hello! 5 Marenghi

[edit] Light-year

Thank you for reminding me that this is a measure of distance (I did actually already know as much). The point I was trying to get across was that measuring pregnancy in lunar months is just as silly. Again thanks.Drrem (talk) 00:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to pregnancy page.

Hi TZ.
Not only do I not mind you changing my last edit but I appreciate the constructive help you are offering. I obviously cannot say as much for all those over-eager editors who seem to get their kicks from "reverting" something to its original erroneous form.
I also enjoyed reading the bit about not biting newbies. It is certainly neither easy nor instinctive moving around in here and any constructive advice is welcome. Trying to make something better takes time and effort whereas destroying it - on Wikipedia - can be done with a simple click of the mouse (I think).--Drrem (talk) 08:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Further changes

Hi TZ.
The first 5 lines of "Pregnancy characteristics" are much plainer reading now.
I haven't added references, but there weren't any there prior to my edit anyhow.
What I have written is NOT opinion (mine or anyone else's) but is pure medical FACT so I don't know on what logical basis anyone can object (if not just for the sake of objection and "reversion").
--Drrem (talk) 09:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hello!

Mr Zig, who is editing Battle Royale pages...IMDb by any chance?

Ha ha, this is Addy/Caissa's DeathAngel if it is you! Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 16:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Marenghi

Cheers on the baby, I kept trying to keep this short but I like to be clear, you can always just ignore if you're not interested. Sources are needed for claims not already self-evident in the primary material, right? Poor production in the show is, in my opinion, self-evident. (We could just describe all the examples of poor production but I think making that judgement is safe/uncontroversial.) Since this is a comedic show, we are simply describing elements of the show. If we said "the funniest part of the show is" or "what makes this funnier than that show is" then I think there would be a problem. If it's just the word "humour" there that you feel is problematic you can simply change it to "The show parodies the horror genre including elements of poor production, etc." but as I said before I find it a bit pedantic. It's a comedy show, it aims for humour, we're describing some of the elements, not making qualitative assessments. I added a source from the External Links for now.

As to number of sources, most of the sources (that are actually necessary) in the other articles refer to events outside the show, such as future production, reception, etc. which means you obviously can't cite the primary material. They're also much bigger for the most part and therefore have more information, and therefore higher need for citations. (3/4 of the citations in the Red Dwarf article pertain to backing up controversial claims like "the main setting of Red Dwarf is on the spaceship 'Red Dwarf'" which is, I hope we can agree, somewhat unnecessary.) If there are claims that need sourcing, tag them/remove them (as you've generally been doing, it's just this one sentence and the general tendency it is part of that gets to me). Originally, if you check the history, there were tons of OR statements about what specific shows it was parodying and praise and stuff, but I cut it all down to one sentence, which I thought was self-evident/uncontroversial/neutral.

As to an AFD, I highly doubt it will happen. It passes notability so it won't get deleted. If someone does get overzealous and nominates it, it would most likely be split between keep/keep+rewrite/keep+clean up at worst. Since the show never became too big it likely will never become a huge article since there's very little information out there, but it won't get deleted. I'm fine with the template at the top since I think it's justified and encourages people to find sources for information not sourced within the primary material. You said it makes a lot of claims for only having one source but I'm not sure what that refers to (maybe the character section? pretty unencyclopedic section imo). Sorry for the length, take care --TM 19:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

One last thing, here's the initial overhaul I'd done on the article a while ago [1] just to give you an idea of why I feel like that one sentence is relatively safe in the context of this article. Also, the reception section is definitely where citations are needed. i'll go away now. --TM 20:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's an amazing improvement. Thanks for your effort. I made a few grammar tweaks but there wasn't much to improve on. --TM 19:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)