User talk:TAnthony/Archive 4

1128:

grunt work of finding quality citations (certainly I'm not up to it at the moment), and so we end up with scads of plot summary and a couple sources that verify the actor who plays the character and the fact that they've been well-reviewed. For example: I think Robb is quite possibly a notable character based on his increased role in the TV show. But as it stands four of his article's six citations are for the fact that Madden played the character, one links to a puff interview with Madden from Entertainment Weekly to support the claim that Madden's performance was well-reviewed, and one makes the useful point that TV Robb is more important than book Robb but links to a page that no longer exists (but may be archived somewhere). This is an issue in ASOIAF/GOT articles: the publicity cycle for the TV show generates a lot of third-party coverage that's low-quality and ephemeral but can be plugged in to create a references section that gives the impression of a well-sourced, well-rounded article. It's gonna take some careful editorial judgment and debate to decide which characters are notable enough to warrant separate articles, and which can be handled with a paragraph on the characters page.

7407:; in this particular instance it seems the best redirect destination, but of course redirects can be changed when a better destination arises. Finally, the list itself may be the best destination for certain characters, and these entries are the ones that can possibly be longer because the list becomes the primary source of information on the character. Shmi should not really have a longer description in the list than Luke because in those cases the list should only be identifying them and driving traffic elsewhere. I understand what you're saying but we do not need to differentiate major characters in the way you describe. Every link on Knowledge may lead to a full article on the named topic, a specific section, or something else entirely, but we don't "warn" readers of a redirect in the body of an article (or a table for that matter).— 5924:

neither in the books nor the TV series. The fact that she's Sam's partner doesn't make her a member of the House Tarly. We cannot just create a family tree based on your own fictions. Is there any proof that they have married? And obviously only husbands and wives are added to each house's family tree not lovers and partners. And about the Clegane family tree, what does it actually add to those articles? What's the purpose of having it? It just shows that they had two unknown parents, which every single person on the Earth does. No one has fallen from the sky, everyone is born and has a father and a mother. So what's the reason for keeping these family trees? Do you also agree with me?

6873:, but it is too trivial for this list—it's perhaps notable in that context, but not "critical" to understanding of the plot/topic. There are already over 100 planets (!!!) listed here; if those were the only one ones ever mentioned, then the list could probably remain manageable with entries like this. But there are hundreds. And again, if we list every planet ever mentioned in relation to a notable plot point, it would get ridiculous. This list is not just about the films, it is meant to note the fictional locations considered notable in the franchise as a whole. I'm not an expert on the expanded universe but 5510:, a single editor did create/recreate nearly all of the character articles over this past year with some cursory citations and then, of course, the masses jumped in. Some of the new articles are decently sourced and on their way, some have a bit of junk, and some are thin. Myself and others were fighting it at first, but with the amount of coverage out there now I had high hopes that many would be improved. I honestly don't contribute to any ASOIAF character articles on a regular basis except ones I've already worked on significantly, and I haven't yet chosen my next one for improvement ;) — 6843:

now the one comic that went into any depth into the bounty hunter's backstory has been decononised. Then there are numerous homeworld planets in the list that I quite honestly don't remember hearing mentioned but some of them like Sullust are home to species that don't even play any sufficient role in the films, only ever seen playing bit parts or as extras. You could probably argue all the planets only ever verbally mentioned in the films are non-notable but if you're going to do that you may as well just rename the article "List of planets and moons seen in the Star Wars films".

1155:

have to singlehandedly manage the situation, but with others involved I'm on board. Obviously I worked a lot on Tyrion, Jon and Ned, and I've collected some research on several other characters, but haven't had a chance to seriously commit to others yet. I intended for my next one to be Daenerys, but that one is decent for now so I will probably do some work on Jaime and Cersei. You are correct that most of the other new ones, as notable as the characters may be, are fine as entries in the list until someone cares enough to create a real article.—

2597:"According to AFTRA union rules a speaking part exceeding five lines in a day triggers a substantial rise in pay. To remain an under-five the total number of words in the five lines or less must be below 50. Under-five roles have therefore been an integral consideration in script development, especially in regards to episodic budgeting. An Under-Five, however, need not have any spoken lines at all provided they are spoken to in furtherance of the plot, as in addressing a police officer, or a nurse for assistance." 544: 31: 6432:

of course there are occasionally "bad" usages, as in galleries or decorative images. I've found though that the percentage of these is relatively small, they seem to get policed out pretty well. In any case, your bot sounds amazing and should really filter this horrendous backlog, which was what I was attempting in the first place. Do you think it will get approved soon? I'm happy to lay off this for now and resume more in depth assessments when your bot has cleaned things up. Thanks.—

6757:

film--just a Ukrainian American who was amazed that someone had the hutzpa to gather the money, interest the talent, go through all the wickets and permissions, etc. and put something out there that would raise awareness about the horror of the Holodomor. Sorry if I made editing errors, or caused frustration. But I can see that you are trying to get a fair handle on the gist of my attempts. I sincerely appreciate your professionalism and dedication to the Knowledge goals.````

2888:. I believe there is definitely a "clearly established" date format. The first dated citation added in 2012 (!) may have used ISO dates, but pretty much every citation added since then did not, so as the article has been noticeably improved, it "has evolved using predominantly one format". It's not as if the citations were evenly split. I suppose we can argue both sides of the policy but I've never seen someone change the majority of an article's cite dates on a technicality.— 6333: 4870: 7119:

story outside american soil. The very reason to have this page in US wikipedia was to help readers, collectors and pop culture enthusiasts that such book existed in Denmark, where it was originally produced, and in other European countries. The comic book covers that I put in the page was to help people. All this comics no longer are being published and their publisher companies no longer exists, they all shut down, so there are no copyright holders whatsoever.

4067: 4017: 6592: 6536: 5985:. I tried to clean them up as best I can, but I'm not well versed in navbox making, and I'm also stuck editing on tablet and mobile, making tasks like alphabetizing a living hell. Should you have interest or time, can you take a look at them? Additionally, I read the note on Qäsee's talk about the Rogue One characters. Thought I'd mention I'm likely to adopt those articles, especially Cassian, once I can edit from something other than a tablet. ~Cheers, 7299: 1621: 1515: 1214: 903: 774: 5809: 5766: 4230: 4786: 4579: 1085:. I was hoping he would start doing some actual work on them, but that hasn't happened yet. No one has really objected, and there's no real harm in letting these articles for major characters hang around for awhile, so I wasn't in the mood to create too much of a stink. But if you're back, then maybe we can get into it. He has been clever enough, though, to add some citations, and while the articles need a lot of work, something like 5628:

category. But I actually have to view many of the files/articles manually to confirm I'm assigning an appropriate category. Some filenames/descriptions are vague and there are invariably subcategories which are not consistent. I've done over 20K now so I'm hitting the point where I am going to have to go thru them one by one and manually assign categories (though even having AWB cue them up and plug in a dummy category saves time).—

502: 5040: 4896: 4266: 2792: 2694: 1786: 4829: 4192: 184: 4727: 4520: 5475:. I heard someone telling me that they heard someone else say that the HBO website said that Rhaegar and Lyanna were Jon's parents. That was the "rumour" I was talking about. The reason I didn't remove the claim outright was because I was inclined to believe the rumour was accurate and therefore almost certainly verifiable. I didn't see the bit in our article that cited the same website and linked to it. 3098:, especially since there aren't other sources at the moment. The writer/director info is relatively minor and can wait until episodes air. As far as the logo, just make sure you are creating the sword from scratch and not copyrighted clip art, and do you have a source for the original so no one can challenge that what you upload is a) your version and b) a replica of what the show is actually using?— 5269: 6692:

don't necessarily watch the article and comprehend a subsequent edit, but they get an alert when they are reverted. I did actually check the editor's edit history first because their user page was a redlink. In any case, thanks for your reminder that we should be more understanding of new editors, and certainly someone who took the time to create a username is probably more serious than an IP.—

4676: 4469: 3199: 305: 294: 275: 5208:

This is more than adequate to "get information about this breed out for the world". I appreciate you adding these images, but I'm hoping you understand that when describing and captioning them we cannot include our personal observations. Further, when unsourced information is challenged by another editor, that editor may remove that information until a source is provided. By the way,

2744: 597:! It already had some issues with being too in-universe when an anon recently began bloating it to ridiculous levels. I reverted the bloat twice, and left a note on the talk page, but was reverted each time without any attempt to address the issue. I had essentially given up, and removed the article from my watchlist, when I saw that you modified the redirect from 6998:, and this pretty much trumps any sources which may show otherwise unless there is consensus that a particular unusual spelling, capitalization or punctuation is significant, overwhelmingly used, and notable. I should also point out that the official website appears to use a lowercase W, though using that as "proof" may be original research. Lastly, per 135:. Illustrating a key point isn't enough to meet NFCC#8. The only acceptable uses are when a) the image itself is the subject of critical sourced commentary (not applicable here, as the section discusses the bikini, not the image thereof) or b) when the image is used to identify a subject of the article. This is also problematic, because the subject of 7356:

have paragraphs. But at the same time it would be a wasted effort to add in longer descriptions for major characters who already warrant their own articles. So I think the main article template is quite fitting here, or at least bolding the names of those with their own full pages. Just trying to make a better and more informative article over all.

143:) As NFCC#8 says: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" - again, that topic is Leia, not the bikini, and not having an image of the bikini certainly isn't detrimental to understanding who or what Leia is. 6611:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see 6555:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see 2444:

wide array of readers. Two columns may be too many for someone on a small tablet with a large font, two may be too few on a large screen (we take our style cues from physical publishing much of the time). Dynamic is a better use of space, keeping reference sections shorter from top to bottom in most cases. I don't think I remember ever seeing a

2725: 167:

book articles with many more images that somehow are justified. That said, there are two basic facts that have me willing to drop it to go with you on this: 1) as you say, there is a main article that features the image, and 2) there's a great Commons image that can illustrate the iconic costume for those not headed to that other article. —

5165:

You also edited out when I said he was large, he is the biggest cat I ever owned and I have owned Maine Coons. You mention sources, I am the source and you can see the picture. I am just trying to get information about this breed out for the world to see and you feel you need to edit everything. Please explain what you are trying to do?

5568:"05:40, 10 November 2016‎ TAnthony (9,680 bytes) (-222)‎ . . (→‎External links: You've already used Patreon as a source above, this is inappropriate promotion of her fundraising efforts" and "05:39, 10 November 2016‎ TAnthony (9,902 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Refs go before Ext links her the MOS)". Just trying to contribute to the article... 7163:

vacuum of space, someone or some entity is left with the rights to its intellectual property. Fair use policy allows for a minimal amount of images to illustrate a topic; in this case, this means the one cover image in the infobox and not the additional five variants you have provided. I'm sorry but those are the rules.—

1364:. I mostly used AWB to navigate faster, and made the changes to bare filename manually. In any case, I was assuming this kind of infobox image syntax maintenance category was in use more widely, but now I see it is not. So I'm wondering, do you think it's appropriate to add this function to other infoboxes like 7253:

Hey! Nice start on the historical figures list. I tweaked the heading and added a few, as well as who they are. We should talk about others who might be included (Robert Stack, Cliff Robertson, Lee Remick, etc.) I believe there are several more coming, based on the IMDB, but I have the group from

6756:

Thank you for adding to the Reception subhead. This is the first real movie with the subject as backdrop, and it would be a shame if it was just dismissed as bad. Having seen the film, I feel it was an honest effort by someone who had the chops to do something like this. I am not connected with the

5222:

Yes I just adopted both of the cats 3 weeks ago. You are obviously passionate about cats and I appreciate that. The cat "Highlander-7.jpg" is a girl and is definitely amazing looking and very sweet. I am now understanding how on Wiki you can't state something even though you can see it in a picture,

5164:

The large male cat has ears that are curved significantly backwards, about 45 degrees, but are very short compared to most Highlander cats I have seen. Can you not see the picture? If this somehow makes him not appropriate to be called a Highlander cat just tell me why. It is an "experimental breed".

3516:

I think the only reason to separate these lists would be if they are too long and difficult to navigate, but as there are relatively few "canon" entries, splitting would not be advantageous. The problem with your way of thinking is that canonicity is not an aspect we use to categorize like they do at

3371:

You remind me of the man from USA who, when I asked how he liked Hawaii, told me Hawaii was the entrance to the Pacific. It happened we were in the Pacific, where I live, and for Oceania (which is rather bigger than North America) it is an exit from the Pacific. Do you see what I am trying to say? It

3164:

Hi. Have you seen the recently created family trees of houses Tarly and Bolton? Actually it seems really ridiculous to have these two family trees here on Knowledge. House Tarly isn't a prominent house like the others to have a separate family tree and house Bolton is pretty small. What do you think?

2401:

You have no idea how much I hate getting into a content conflict with you; especially on Star Wars content. You are probably the second largest contributor to Star Wars pages after myself besides the movies. You've taken a great workload off of me regarding Star Wars pages. The reason I disagree with

2274:

lead remains the same, I merely restored the citations you removed to other areas of the article where they were used. My subsequent edits had nothing to do with the character's name in the lead. The recurring infobox and character name discussions are excruciating, I don't really want to bother with

1102:

Fixed a typo in my last post, more like rewrote a sentence. Question though, the redirect on the Jaime article was removed. I figured that one was easiest because the notability, citations, and plot tags had been up for about six months and no one had improved the article since then, or even posted

7351:

I see you have removed all of this, but is this absolutely set in stone for these main article links not to appear in a table? They fit well in the descriptions for the main characters and let readers know that there is definitely much more to these characters descriptions than a line or two. If not

6441:

I'm running the trial now and expect it to be approved imminently, yeah. I wouldn't expect/want one of our precious few file editors banging their head against a brick wall just adding the parameter to these, so probably best to wait for the bot to run through. The run may take several weeks, as the

6395:

Hi TAnthony. What's your process when reviewing non-free use rationales with AWB? A thorough human review of non-free use often requires manually looking at the page to determine the context it's used in, reviewing the page to see if other non-free images are used, etc. Are you doing this? Note that

5500:

and eventually all of the character articles is not a bad idea. In that particular article I feel the plot is pretty sound but by all means please adjust or call to my attention to anything else that seems interpretive. Obviously you're correct that many editors with varying degrees of understanding

4620:

If it has to be redirected, why not an appropriate subsection which is relevant to the topic. Although philosophy and religion are notable topics and Star Trek and Star Wars, if they are to be redirected, I think they should be redirected to a more appropriate section or subsection that are relevant

3810:

and seen it elsewhere (though of course non-free images should be used very sparingly, if at all). The same goes for the planet, one well-sourced article covering all these related people, places and things is stronger and asserts more notability than several separate small articles on the race, the

3649:

about overlinking to the U.S. It seems reasonable to me. I think most readers will know what the U.S. is and do not need a wiki-link to it. I feel the same way about years being linked to. (I find it annoying thinking I will find something interesting in clicking the link to the year and all you

3264:

I am trying to send this message to tAnthony. You appear to have removed an edit I made to the Dark Shadows Knowledge entry three times in the last 24 hours. If it is you, can you please explain the reason to me. There is no doubt in my mind that the Judah Zachery story was inspired/influenced by H.

3062:

here are a lot of issues at play, the first being that we are not supposed to maniuplate non-free images except for cropping and resizing (and perhaps brightness/clarity). Adding a logo to an existing image is not acceptable. The Cullen image on its own is not useful to identify the series since you

2529:

Well it obviously didn't reach Good status with the citations the way they are, so it has fallen on hard times and I don't think it should be used as an example of anything. But Good is still a far cry from Featured, and my point was that if we are aspiring to make the best articles we should follow

2413:

About the columns link, I don't think references that are under a hundred need up to three columns. I use a macbook bro and it does indeed feel a little wide on my screen. I think two columns are good enough. Once we get over a hundred citations, we can consider increasing he columns. But I'd rather

1154:

Glad to have you comment, the ASOIAF character articles have obviously been an issue since the show started, as (like any popular show) the fanboys/girls want to chronicle the plot in detail but have no interest in anything else. Like I said above, I didn't want to revert all of AffeL's articles and

7156:

I have never told you that your edits were vandalism; you are not understanding Knowledge's fair use policies and are continuing to improperly use non-free images. I inadvertently reported you at WP:AIV (vandalism) instead of WP:ANI (incidents) however, which works in your favor because you are not

6431:

in the A's. Honestly my first pass review in most cases has been, as you suggest, a cursory check that a rationale is present and that the description etc. seems to match the article title. Logos, posters, currency, etc. are usually simple to confirm in this way without visiting the article, though

5938:

I agree with you that a) Gilly should not be part of the Tarly tree; and b) that a Clegane tree is useless since we have only two brothers and no other relatives, and it is already easy to navigate between the two articles. It seems like the issue has been settled but I will try to look out for any

5525:

Hello. There is a typo in the Thomas Minor article that I am not sure how to fix. When you access the article through the Knowledge mobile app, it says at the very top under the article title (Thomas Minor) "American city ofunder" rather than "American city founder". I cannot figure out how to edit

3967:

before and unfortunately I was unable to visit Knowledge for a while. You said User:AffeL would object deleting or merging those two family trees. Well, he can try but it's obvious that these are completely useless and unimportant. So what do you suggest? A discussion at the Wikiproject or should I

3063:

can't even see his face, and since it's not what is actually being used for the logo, it would be considered "decorative". I'd say a full-size version of your recreation of the logo text would be great, because if the image only consists of simple geometric shapes or text, then it does not meet the

2470:

Well you have a point, except I don't agree the same thing should go on multiple pages when we've got a ton of diverse images/videos and diversifying it improves the quality of the content. There's tons of BB-8 videos, why use the same one on multiple pages? Anyways nice talking to you. And besides

2443:

As far as columns go: you can't just make up a "2 columns until 100 citations" rule. 30em sets a specific width for each column that will adapt to one column or two or five based on individual screen sizes, windows and preferences. For general readability we should be accommodating as possible to a

2429:

The video is about the physics and design of the toy, period. This has nothing to do with the film character. I appreciate you wanting to add something "different", but it still has to go in the appropriate section. And also, there is no harm in having the same external link in multiple articles if

1127:

Sorry to jump into a discussion on someone else's talk page, but I agree that at least some of these articles should be reverted back to redirects until someone can write versions that adequately demonstrate separate notability for those characters. There doesn't seem to be a lot of interest in the

7199:

Those products are not under american copyright law, they are produced in Europe, so different copyright law applies. But even in USA if copyright product license is not renewed it goes into public domain. Interpresse never renewed the copyright of Superman og Fredsbomben, neither did DC Comics or

7162:

I understand everything you are saying, but these images are not freely useable, whether they are from your personal copies or not. You say "there are no copyright holders whatsoever", but you are wrong: even when a company goes bankrupt, even if everyone that ever worked there was sucked into the

7118:

This particular comic book was never published in USA, so any information in internet is very scarce. We all know that Superman is an american character owned by DC Comics/Warner Brothers, and this particular album was the first only time that DC permitted a foreign publisher to create an original

6842:

But Jango Fett, being the template of the Clone Arm, is critical to the plot so it's relevant to know where the sith hired him. Compare this to Ord Mantell on which Han Solo only mentions running into a non-descript bounty hunter that likely has zero importance to the plot of the movie, especially

6819:

about criteria for inclusion and sourcing, and though it is ongoing, there seems to be agreement that the planets on this list should have significant in-universe notability to the extent that they are the setting for at least part of a work, or something like that. I don't think Bogden meets that

6691:

I actually live two blocks from Bob Hope's former house in Toluca Lake, and I was surprised it wasn't already in the article with a source. I probably would have added it myself in the morning, but honestly a blunt revert can teach more to an editor with one edit than an immediate correction; they

5923:

Hi TAnthony. Recently I have had a problem with a user (AffeL) about the family tree of the House Clegane and also about a character, Gilly. As a fan of both the books and the show, I thought you might be able to help. Is Gilly Sam's wife? As long as I know they have never been officially married,

5425:

Yes, I found one on another site which was larger. However, that is not why I reuploaded it. You are not the copyright holder of the image (that is presumably Nickelodeon) but you uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons, which is for either copyright-free images or images for which the copyright owner is

1050:

Back from my hiatus, and it seems like there is work to be done. I noticed the new character pages sprouting up, I have added notability, plot, and references tags to most of them (though there have been so many I might have missed a few). I have read several of them already, and while they have

7355:

The link alone on the name doesn't differentiate major characters enough, as many don't lead to pages directly about the character listed, and many minor characters have these links as well. For example, a single line next to Luke Skywalker's name seems silly when next to Shmi or Snaggletooth who

5207:

by Knowledge standards, so even if it's your cat and you believe it is large, or the ears are small, the information is unsourced and unreliable. The body of the article contains statements regarding the curled ears and larger size of the breed, and these statements are cited to reliable sources.

5135:

for Featured Article consideration. I would really appreciate any comments or feedback on this nomination, especially since you are one of the more active members of WikiProject Soap Operas. I understand that you must be busy with your own projects on here as well as in real life so I completely

3936:

useful, but then, as I said, I'm not well-versed in categories. Really, I'm not entirely sure who to ask to help sort through the categories and CfD them where appropriate. Do you know anyone who could and would be willing? Also, I attempted to leave a note on Atvica's talk page suggesting in the

3303:

Ok. Thanks for the explanation. This whole process is very new to me as you probably noticed, and I appreciate your description of the role of wiki editors.I am just starting to learn how to navigate through this maze, andI did not see your earlier comments. That said, I have to wonder where does

166:

Of course I see your point, and I strip images from articles myself when they are obviously decorative or excessive, but it is definitely annoying when a large article with but two non-free images (one for primary identification and one for a subtopic) is nitpicked while there are plenty of comic

7394:

is intended to collect all notable characters with a descriptive blurb and appearance/cast info on each. In general, every character should have a primary place at Knowledge where we think the most information about them can be found, and the link to their name should lead there. Characters with

3179:

I agree, a primary use for the trees is navigation rather than the trivia of familial relations among fictional characters, and the Ramsey tree only contains links to two actual articles, the Tarly tree only one. I would boldly redirect both but I'm sure the AffeL, at least, would object. Do you

5627:

I'd be happy to, but it's basic and not quite as automated as it may look! It will add a category to a book license template missing one, but it's not actually choosing. For the most part I pull up articles by category, pull the files on those pages and then run through them with an appropriate

3447:

It may also be noted elsewhere, since while this prohibition is specifically mentioning individual actor templates that list their individual works, you should not be able find a film or TV nav template anywhere that includes cast. I think this follows the same argument, that listing every cast

3292:

and other POV rules. It may seem obvious to you or me that this storyline is inspired by the novella, but as editors we cannot say so. We need to provide a citation for a reliable third party source (like a book or magazine article) that makes this observation, or connects these works. Thanks.—

360:

section, I decided that I'm going to merge the two into a "film & television" section. I'd request that you keep working on that section. Somebody pointed out the history where Lucas borrows from Ancient Rome & Greece which is reflected in Star Wars. Yeah ancient history is probably the

5194:

Thanks for your comment, I was not sure you were seeing my edit summaries and comments on your IP talk pages explaining myself. I figured you were new and that your edits were mad3e in good faith, so I have been trying to explain why some of them are not appropriate additions. Per the policies

850: 473:

Thanks for the note! I read the interview, and while it's possible, maybe even likely, that meeting Isaac in person prompted the change, that's entirely interpretation. Isaacs doesn't suggest as much, Abrams isn't interviewed. Wookiepedia is another wiki, with no content regulation compared to

6881:

are linked from several articles and seem to be settings in other novels and video games. But you could be right, this list (by current design) does not note every use of the planet in the franchise, and one or both of those may not be appropriate for the list either. That might be a possible

4420:

has borrowed, inspired, and predicted various real-world technologies. Ultimately, this statement should be uniformly supported by the various sections, which will be also summarized in the lead. I believe this statement to be fundamentally true, so this is doable. In contrast, the individual

4035:

for more information on this user right and under what circumstances it is okay to move files. When you move a file please remember to update any links to the new name as well! If you do not want the file mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing!

3653:

I'd like to know: does it create a problem other than being a distraction? Like that every instance where U.S. is linked to is all accumulated to one article list, and it makes a mess and is not useful and/or is a burden on the software that accumulates references, stubs, widows, etc.?

2414:

discuss it rather than edit war with you. However (oh that word!) I don't want there to be a weeks long time gap before we respond to one another's messages. I sure hope we can sort this soon (as if you should be in conflict with me over something so small in the first place). Goodnight.--

3107:

Ok. Actress Sabrina Bartlett has posted the front page of her script with the logo clearly visible. The font is clearly Trajan Pro, and I since I work in Adobe programs all day long, drawing a similar sword isn't that hard (I can probably make it even a bit closer....I hope :-)

3565:

without adding an in-universey "Canon" heading that gives the concept more importance. I understand where you're coming from but I think we should see more discussion and consensus before you make these sweeping changes. I'm not the only editor who has reverted you recently. Thanks.—

2530:

the example of the best articles, which by their very nature meet all the criteria, fulfill all the requirements and follow all the rules and policies. And I'm sorry if I sometimes sound condescending when I respond to you, but I sometimes don't understand your way of thinking. —

453:

Thanks for your rewriting of the Poe Dameron article. However, I do believe that Abrams changed the fate of the character after seeing Isaac a little bit reluctuant to accept the role since he was going to die -- and that's what I wanted to stress in my contribution. Apparently

6510:

I'd be happy to help if you can get me more information. I can tell you as far as notability standards go, for a new author it is probably more likely that we can establish notability to create an article for the book itself rather than for the author. For example, the novel

5889:

I see that the category has now been completely cleared (must have taken loads of work!), and it may have taken me more than a year to get around to this, but I just thought I'd say that I've fixed a few that had been migrated to use the front page of the djvu file, by using

627:

Yeah, still a few too many examples; in some cases it tries to give every example of something, especially in the section on "May the Force be with you", where it lists, with details, every time the line is spoken in all seven films. That's unneeded. I may trim that section.

3755:

the planet, seeing as the term redirects to the Mandalorian article? I mean, there is at least some commentary from Filoni on designing the visual setting of Sundari, so it won't be entirely in-universe stuff, though considering the difference between canon!Mandalore and

3448:

member in a film or TV series in the template would quickly make the template crowded and unwieldy. I should note that this section also allows for directors to have templates, and conventionally this has extended to writers as well, and some other notable positions.—

7178:

that feature the cover images rather than restoring the images themselves to the article. This is exactly how it is supposed to work; we can provide information helpful to the reader without violating WP policies, which are in place to protect WP from legal actions.—

5495:

Hi, I see now that my edit summary could be interpreted as snarky, so sorry, that was not intended. I agreed with your assessments about the season 6 plot and made some changes. There is also a wealth of episode coverage in the media so citing the plot summaries in

3721:, if that'd make what I'm talking about. (It needs a lot of work, referencing, and trimming, seeing as my editing style in userspace is write everything now and trim later, but that aside...) It's something similar to what I've done (not very well, admittedly) on 5136:

understand if you do not have the time or would not like to do this. I want to apologize for any inconvenience for posting on here, as we have never worked together in the past on here, but I always would appreciate support from a more experienced user/editor.

2471:

anyone who reads on BB-8 might have an interest in Star Wars and will probably read Technology in Star Wars at some point. For now I'll stay away on concentrate on other stuff. See what you can do to improve the article on that book to help get it published.--

5308: 6664:

is on the editor adding content, but new editors might not know how to do that yet, and simply seeing their changes undone might be disheartening. I've left a note on the talk page of the editor who made the change asking them to use sources in the future.

6289:

I see you removed it from a draft that was a user subpage, which I avoided because it was in userspace, figuring that redlinks are preferred to my editing in someone else's userspace. Is it OK then to remove them from subpages, or User pages themselves?—

3793:

with other franchises, I think first you just have to decide where the basic destination should be for a character. Obviously, the redirect destinations for many minor characters currently go to one of the character lists, or to the source work. Pointing

3304:

editing begin and end. As I review the Dark Shadows entry, for example, I see that in the early summary of the show, it is described as having heroic adventures and adventurous music. These descriptions may have sources, but they are just plain wrong .

741:

The content of that article is quite good. I was trying to copyedit and improve the prose, and some other small tidying. I'm surprised the whole edit was reverted, and none of the changes were included. I don't understand the reason given for the revert

6517:

has enough coverage by reliable sources for a decent starter article, but author Steven Rowley himself does not really meet our requirements for an individual article because his only notability (by Knowledge standards) seems to extend from the novel.—

6901:

Thanks for the edits/cleanup. I would've come around to doing them eventually, but it's always good to see others participating in it too, especially since it feels like a few others and I are the only ones still active in this WikiProject. But yeah.

5821:

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

5320: 6659:

mentions his Toluca Lake residence several times, with sources. I would like to encourage you to perhaps not be so quick to revert new users in the future; especially with statements that can be easily checked and sourced if true. I know that the

7122:

These images were scanned from my own personal collection of the books I bought in early 90s and represent only the cover of the books. I never scanned the content of the books and publish here or anywhere else, that would be copyright offense.

7325:

until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

6032:

Please change the name of that page to "Florida Student Association, Inc." because that is the full legal name of the corporation. And please make a redirect page that links "Florida Student Association" to "Florida Student Association, Inc."

3716:

article, and I'm thinking it'd be a decent place to have sections of significant (Mandalorian) characters who are a little bit floating around, i.e. Satine and Bo-Katan and and Fenn Rau and so on. I have a little bit of a hastily written dump

3265:

P. Lovecraft's novella, The Case of Charles Dexter Ward. This in turn, was inspired (as was the the Dark Shadows storyline) by Hawthorne's The House of the Seven Gables. I have read both books. Have you? Please explain yourself. Ettubrutusad

1361: 6396:

I have a bot in the pipeline to knock out preliminary reviews of "Is there a rationale on the page at all?", which will throw files in a separate tracking category noting that humans should further review them to make sure the rationales are

669:

Hi Anthony, I don't want to get into an edit war with you. Of all the editors who have worked on Star Wars pages, I found yours the most helpful and I hope it stays that way. I also agree with your point on the usage of the word "however" in

6787:

Why is it not notable? There are quite a few other planets on that list that are only mentioned in passing. Yes, they are better known because most of them were mentioned as part of the original trilogy but play no bigger part in the story.

2180:

from re-directs I find in categories, however, I'm really not interested in putting them back to the ones I've removed them from (I didn't know at the time I did it so... meh). If you think I should, let me know and I will (but probably not

7054:

Dave Chapman & Brian Herring mentioned at the DragonCon Panel that a remote controlled rolling BB8 was built and used in only 2 scenes. The rest were the rod puppet and Trolley. I just thought it was an interesting fact to mention.

2903:"The date format chosen by the first major contributor in the early stages of an article should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page." 2644:). You present your own opinions, observations and topic summaries as fact with no direct support from citations. If you think you know what you're doing better than EEMIV and I do, I encourage you to nominate any of these articles for 2947:, which was not the case. Look, I'm not trying to beat a dead horse and I appreciate your work making date formats consistent within articles. I just think you should have changed the two ISOs rather than the four standard. Thanks! — 379:

The merge was a good idea, but you seem confused: Flash Gordon was a comic and then FILM serial, Buck Rogers was also a comic and a film serial, and a TV serial decades later. I hadn't noticed the Flash Gordon caption so I fixed it.—

5293: 6459: 3836:

Ah, that's reassuring. I kind of feel like I've been fumbling around. (Kind of really finally getting back into the swing of things, and I'm mostly feeling, "How does one do these things again?") Thank you for your input! ~Cheers,

3440:

is against including actor templates since not all actors have substantial appearances in all their films and since multiple actors in a film would overpopulate the bottom of a film article with actor templates regardless of role

1416: 6824:

planets, so I'd be interested to know which ones on the list you suggest were merely mentioned and would be equally as notable/non-notable as Bogden? Part of the ongoing discussion concerns whether or not being mentioned in a

864:

For all the additional edits you made to multiple Star Wars pages alongside mine without being told to do so. They couldn't have been better without your input. I found at least 90% of your edits to be positive. Keep it up.

1180:

I know I have seen people do in depth analysis on Cersei's character arc, Jaime I haven't seen as much. I think the Daario, Davos, Oberyn, and Varys articles can be reverted to redirect with a kind explanation as to why.

2142:

You noted the category here but neglected to put a colon before the word Category, like this ]. That makes it a link rather than putting the page into the category. I added the colons to your comment in my last edit. ;)—

3039:

The image with the logo includes the actual Knightfall logo (recreated by me), and juxtaposed on an image from sword training class featuring actor Tom Cullen (preparing for the shoot to start). Any way we can use this?

2253: 1467:

That is awesome, thanks! It's not as populated as I expected so I will probably be coming to you soon with other infoboxes LOL. Does it pull images which are unlinked but contain image: or file: prefixes? Thanks again.—

617:

Thanks! Yeah I was tempted to just revert all the recent crufty adds, but then decided to just rewrite what was there in case anything valuable had been added. It's still not perfect but yes, much better! Thanks again.—

6192:

Hi, Can you send me please a high resolution version of the front cover of From the Wilderness and Lebanon for the use of Knowledge? I wiil need a written permission to upload it, if it's OK with you... Thanks, Itamar

2942:

by an editor who contributed nothing else to the article before or since. And before you suggest that as the first editor to use a date this constitutes the "first major contributor", that perspective only applies when

4425:

items are not currently tied together toward the same kind of "thesis", they are just presented as elements that exist in the franchise. They're not really subtopics because as it's currently presented, "Technology of

1059:

and explain on the users talk page why. The others I think we can leave the tags up and see if anyone improves the articles by finding third party, non book, non casting citations. If not, back to redirects they go.

5537: 601:

and checked out the article. Much better! I'm putting it back on my watchlist to help ensure that it isn't reverted without comment. If the anon does try that again, I'll request page protection for the edit warring.

435: 5573: 1357: 3815:, choose whichever destination makes the most sense and make that the more robust entry, while the other one is a short blurb with a link back to the other. I don't know if you think she would be better located at 7329:

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

6266:

Hey, thanks for the help recently with some of those page orphans at the Holding Cell. One thing I'd ask is that you orphan templates from every namespace, not just main, before listing them for deletion. Thanks.

3357:

are you disagreeing with? I think Germany, France, Japan and the US are among the most basic, well-known countries in the world, especially to people reading English Knowledge, which is what we're dealing with.—

5549:

from a desktop browser, but I do see it on the search results page of the mobile app, even after I purged the cache. I'm not sure what to do about that, I don't know where the app is getting that summary from.—

6303:

is more of a courtesy than a hard rule, and updates like these are explicitly mentioned as being perfectly acceptable. It also keeps the maintenance category of "pages calling deleted templates" a bit cleaner.

3920:) that Atvica created another category. I'm not overly well-versed in categories and I generally stay away from them, hence why I was (probably too) cautious in my nom. But, I went through and took a look at 2019: 1323:

I've finished editing the article for the time being save for minor edits and left you a message on the talk page. Look at it at some time. I'll also post some useful links possible for use as citations. Good

6707:

On the Miss Universe 2006 page, it is supposed to be USA. Not United States. In the pageant, they say "Miss USA" and designate her as USA, not United States, and the official name of the pageant is Miss USA.

3142:

Yes that's weird, and I'm not sure why it's doing that but it may have something to do with the size reduction in the infobox. Maybe try uploading a larger sized version over the current one over the current

1450: 3437: 2913:

clear in this case because later ref date formats were all over the place. But a Talk page discussion about it would have been nice (I prob. would have agreed to a change after a discussion). Just sayin'.

3921: 6547: 6057:

i tried to make a few edits in the book list cause the Jedi tales are not novels they are comic book and they should not be in the list with novels i think comic books should have their own section.

2382:. The article needs more references. I've put a friendly search tool template on the talk page to help dig out more sources. See what you can do to get the article more coverage to publish it. Cheers.-- 5304: 5342:

Hi, I am the creator of the UFO Kidnapped page, and I put the image in the info box. It needs the fit the box. Please do not shrink the image, as it looks better when it fits the top of the info box.

3080:

Ok, I can upload just the logo later. Another question. The lead director and the writers all sate on social media they are working on the show. I guess that isnot good enough sources...or are they?

6528: 5833:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 2030:. Before this template it was common to put unique redirects in character categories; I personally liked it for navigation purposes but I believe there's a rule somewhere that it's now frowned upon. 3190: 3587:. I've been watching the article balloon the last few days and've been too preoccupied with real life to wade in. I might have a quiet weekend and'll try to offer some additional contributions. -- 1028:

Ack, yes with Aftermath -- most of this was in the Visual Dictionary anyway (I don't have it in hand, I'm going by Wookiepedia's citations - it was just a quick touch-up to the article on here).--

333:

which could use some expansion. Perhaps those refs I put on the talk page could come in handy? Your assistance is welcomed. Anyways I'm going to bed soon. Spent too much time working on that....--

3748:

as if it were a main article, write a tiny summary and hatnote it (like I will for Boba Fett and Jango Fett)? I'm pretty sure that's the better way to do it, but I'm second-guessing myself here.

3128:

Sorry to bother you again. Do you now why my recreated Knightfall logo is so blurry, once displayed on Knowledge? The DPI is fine, so I wonder what I did wrong? I would be grateful for any input

2379: 492: 3531:

I understand, but I do feel we should try to keep everything the sections separated within the same article. Well at least we should try to write everything separated within different sections.

5777: 4398:. Unless each section is it's own subtopic, it's nothing more than a list. And every article on Wiki has subtopics at least 95% of them so they are not lists just because they are subtopics.-- 2998:. Your other section about Nolan Miller and fashion was completely unsourced and full of your opinion. I was actually just looking for citations to add some fashion-related material. Thanks.— 2859:

that's the format that should have been used for the other refs. It's generally not a good idea to go against MOS:DATERET unless there is clear consensus to change (ref) date formats. FWIW. --

1051:

citations on who cast them, the awards they have won, and the ASOIAF book references, none of them cite a single third party source that provides any analysis, which I think is a pretty clear

6603: 5440: 3557:

article is about publications from a real-world perspective, not storylines, so "canon" only has its place as a historical development in publication and branding. Most of the "important"

6584: 6306:

My personal exceptions are if a template is in some sort of of "templates I've created" page, or used in an archive, in which case I will comment it out rather than remove it entirely.

1378:

be systematically corrected across Knowledge, along the lines of deprecated parameters. And that would tell me if it's really appropriate to be using AWB to do it. What do you think?—

5849: 4241: 3214: 2296:), but I don't remember most of the bits. (if the giant tables intimidate you, there's a spot on the talk page for listing details and letting others add them to the actual tables) 239:

I think I'm in over my head with trying to edit the family tree by including the marriage of Leia and Han, as well as Ben Solo as the their son. Would you like to take care of this?

5759: 3630:{{ping|Loriendrew} thank you for letting me know, that is completely my fault and I should have caught it before I saved the edit. I'll update my script accordingly, thanks again.— 6931:

Toby Huss has a recurring role in the series as Frank Sinatra, it is not a one off character and given that Mr. Sinatra is a well known/famous person he should be included anyway.

7346: 5141: 3206: 1967:, it just seemed like added emphasis for something that's already there regardless (and, like I said, I just assumed they were leftovers). Anyhow, just curious. Thanks in advance. 445: 2632:"It's a bit frustrating that you still insist on adding this kind of material when I have tried explaining to you some of these same content concepts in regards to your edits to 3730: 5651:

with "yes" when adding the FUR and licensing template(s). You're already looking at the article and the image so you are in the perfect position to include this info. Thanks.—

5223:

the statement has to come from a reliable source. I apologize, I love my new cats and just wanted to get more info out on them. If I ever post again I will contact you first.

474:

Knowledge, you're reading the personal interpretation of another editor like yourself who has read the interview that way. I'm interested in a more respectable news piece like

4395: 2600:

or add a citation needed tag. It is irrational to cherry pick like you and others have done. If you do not chop the section I have in quotes I'll do it myself. Regards. W.G.

5533: 557: 431: 1732:, I figured you'd want to be pointed out to a problem happening at Will's page, and its talk page. One user has made mass-changes to the Will article that both myself and 5569: 3226: 6579: 5587: 749:, as I think it is best that discussions of an article are kept with the article. It may be some time before I can revisit the discussion but I appreciate your input. -- 361:

biggest influence on Star Wars. Work on the film & television part and I'll develop the history part. If you want you can keep checking with the documentary for help

4223: 3905: 7365: 6741:, I should have checked if she had a page but many pageant contestants I came across in these lists don't, and are instead linked to their countries for some reason.— 4233: 2782: 754: 6400:. It's that accuracy review we need humans to focus on. I'm also worried about the rate of edits. 30 edits/minute is about as fast as AWB goes, and it runs afoul of 6223:

per standard Knowledge policy. I'm not sure how you go about getting the size restriction lifted per your permissions email, but you may want to ask the question at

5462: 3741: 1374:, which is set up for bare filenames but is used in a lot of articles with the "old" linked syntax? I guess what I'm getting at is whether or not this kind of thing 5867: 5793: 5507: 4383:

technology article has more going for it, so while I still think it's kind of listy, I don't think it's necessary right now that it be moved or renamed or anything.

2206: 7390:

enough, this is how character lists (and lists in general) are formatted. The link itself tells us there is more information elsewhere without needing a template.

6635: 6493: 4314: 4205: 3726: 467: 4734:, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See 4527:, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See 5237: 5179: 4430:" isn't really a topic, it's exactly like Airports of Pakistan. Like I said elsewhere, a standalone list does not have to be a bare bulletpoint list or table. — 3982:

I just boldly eliminated the Tarly tree, we can take it to TfD if there is any backlash. I think we should do the same to the Bolton tree and just put copies in

2310: 2212: 458:

has the same interpretation of the GQ article. Therefore I think it would be appropriate to keep this detail in the current version of the article. Best regards

5577: 2292:

If you remember enough about the vampires in the Kitty Norville books, I'm trying to add them to the ginormous list of vampire traits in folklore and fiction (

6148: 5126: 5085: 4948: 4842: 475: 7234:

instead, but you must be sure to add the appropriate license for this situation, and be able to provide documentation if requested, or they will be deleted.—

6811:

planets (all deleted now as an excessive amount of unsourced trivia), and there are literally hundreds of planets if we count every one ever mentioned in any

5368:

was rather small after the change because the image was smaller than the default. You're still using deprecated syntax though, so I've corrected it and added

5298: 2812: 2540: 2223: 2094:, historically we categorized notable redirects that had a potential to become articles, were list entries, or otherwise belonged for proper navigation, but 100: 2651:

I also just discovered this comment. I'd be very interested in to know where that's coming from. Where did you see me inserting "my opinions" un-sourced in

2342:(first awarded) and vice versa in a handful of instances, as appropriate. You are correct though, that one should not have been changed, sorry about that.— 2328: 7403:) are redirected to those sections and should have minimal descriptions in the list. Some characters names may be just redirects to the source works, like 6764: 6488:

Hi Sir, We are trying to get a wiki page setup for an author who's book is to be launched soon. We would request you if you could help us with the same --

5982: 5874: 5741:

and I've nominated the article for peer review, can you give me any thoughts or ideas on how to improve the article while I'm still working on it? Thanks,

5520: 4763: 4704: 4556: 4497: 3495:

That way the Star Wars Canon, becomes more easier to follow on Wikkipedia! I would split the articles myself but I'm new at this I don't know how to do it

7382:, and I actually don't think it fits well into the description box of a table. Even looking at it objectively, it is indented as a hatnote, which belongs 7036:, etc. Of course unusual formatting/stylization can and should be noted in the article if it is notable, but I don't think that's the case here. Thanks.— 6237:

has a default display size around what the current image size is anyway, and most readers will probably not click through to see the full image. Thanks.—

6136: 5883: 5104: