User talk:Discordance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome!
Hello, Discordance, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- KHM03 15:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] South Park
Hey, thanks! You did a good job as well. Keep up the good work. Sfufan2005 00:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Proposed division of Lost (TV series) Episodes
Hi; I noticed that you were preparing to divide up the LOST episodes into separate articles. While I appreciate the enthusiasm to do so-- which does follow Wikipedia's Be Bold policy-- such a major revision is something that needs to be discussed first to get a consensus from current, ongoing editors. I had previously been in support of just this solution to the lengthy episode summaries, but the idea failed to gain support. It would be a good idea to look over some of the previous Talk page discussions about dividing the episodes, and then posting a proposal for "Straw Poll" before proceeding further.
Please see:
- Talk:Episodes_of_Lost_(season_1)#Break_up_into_one_article_per_episode
- Talk:Episodes_of_Lost_(season_1)#Looong_summaries
- Talk:Episodes_of_Lost_(season_2)#Trivia_running_rampant.3F
And for an example of a major LOST related poll:
You will likely need to develop a well-reasoned argument for dividing the Episodes into separate articles to answer some of the concerns raised by editors in discussions above. For instance:
- Why individual episode articles versus brief summaries?
- How will quality be maintained on that many new pages? 25 pages would need to be created for Season 1 alone, which some editors feel would be a lot of work to monitor.
- How would such hypothetical new pages be named to prevent encyclopedic confusion?
Thanks Good luck! —LeFlyman 17:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood: it's not with me that you need to clarify your reasoning, but with the many other editors on LOST -- since you're unknown as an editor there, it's likely that whatever bold initiative you take without getting consensual approval would result in it being reverted and your work being for nought. I highly suggest you refrain from your per-article division until you get buy-in on the Talk page from other editors.—LeFlyman 18:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- (I posted this to your Talk page prior to reading your latest additions to the Lost talk page, and some of my wording came across as somewhat strong, but the gist of what I said remains the same. We need to discuss this more.)Danflave 19:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- I find it very disconcerting that, as someone who has not contributed to the Lost page in the past, you have suddenly shown up to advocate a radical change to the article. In fact, you have not so much "advocated" as "forced a decision on everyone." I actually think you bring up some good points about splitting the episode guide up; however, your brusque manner and rude decision to go forward without discussing this with other Wikipedians is quite a turn-off. Also, will you be monitoring the possibly 150+ articles that will result from this change? We have had major, major problems with crufty, poorly-written material in the Lost pages and the dozen or so of us who regularly "patrol" the pages are genuinely concerned about the burden of keeping up with this new workload. I strongly suggest you Talk about this before proceeding. Danflave 19:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
For future reference see the new guidelines at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes. Discordance 23:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] ThunderCats episodes
Hi - good work on the ThunderCats episodes! I have filled in all the episodes that I can remember. Looks like you're a fan! :) Keep up the good work! Marky1981 21:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] List of The Simpsons episodes
Thanks for the heads up on List of The Simpsons episodes. tregoweth 00:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] G11
Hey regarding the episode Brian Goes Back to College. The official episode title actually includes (and Stewie Goes With For Obvious Comedy Reasons) which is why i think it should still be included...
[edit] Consistent widths
I find no discussion of fixed widths for episode lists. Not on:
The most I see is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject List of Television Episodes#I'm interested where you suggested it yourself and it appears that's that. I'd recommend linking such a discussion (or, minimally, mention the specific (talk) page) when you revert since my cursory search didn't find anything and you, presumably, know exactly where you're talking about.
On a sidenote: the SP list looks great. It certainly has gone a long way since I last looked at it many moons ago.
On a sidenote of the sidenote: I find the color selection on List of South Park episodes quite amusing considering the source (List of Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes) was for the colors of the DVDs. Even my comment is intact. :)
Cheers! Cburnett 02:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- I have to admit that I had a good laugh about having my colors used on multiple lists. :) I'm mostly glad they're getting some use elsewhere. I don't know if you care, but there's some info here Talk:List of Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes#Colors used. Cburnett 02:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] TV project userbox
I have an image that could be used in that box. Would you be too upset if I altered the box a bit? Please answer on my talk page. Lady Aleena 14:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- It is done, so take a look when you next refresh your User page. Grey is always a good neutral color to use, and the shade I chose makes the box more readable. Hope you like it. Lady Aleena 15:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Trap Door episode stills
I added up the size of the scaled versions of the PNG images used in the Trap Door episodes article, and the whole lot (when you have all 40), will be about 640k. That would take quite a while to download on dialup. I suggest using Jpeg. It results in a much smaller filesize. If you save at 95% quality, you retain great image quality with about 1/4 the filesize.--Drat (Talk) 00:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Did you use 95% quality? It should result in smaller files than that. I'll try a couple.--Drat (Talk) 01:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] South Park
That's cool. Thanks. Heh, I'm surprised you were able to do much of anything, the way the site has been today, with the server problems. Very erratic.--Drat (Talk) 02:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Family Guy Animation
Family Guy has, in fact, been criticized for it's animation; I'll try to dig deeper as to where I found that information, but I do know that the creators of South Park hate the show, and some people think the animation is "easy" and "not complex enough". --MasTer of Puppets Peek! 23:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, I just thought we should put it in if only for the information. I'm desperately trying to remember where I read this; I'll get it as soon as I can so that we can cite it. --MasTer of Puppets Peek! 02:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] TV episode TOCs
Check out List of M*A*S*H episodes for how extra sections were handled there. Cburnett 01:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] I've found it!
I've found zit, Johnson! Bring ze typewriter! Criticism of Family Guy is where I read the stuff. Just link it to the main Family Guy article, I guess? --MasTer of Puppets Peek! 17:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, it already is linked... but we can put in the graphical critisicms thing, right? I don't even know why I'm so excited. --MasTer of Puppets Peek! 17:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Request for edit summary
Hi. I am a bot, and I am writing to you with a request. I would like to ask you, if possible, to use edit summaries a bit more often when you contribute. The reason an edit summary is important is because it allows your fellow contributors to understand what you changed; you can think of it as the "Subject:" line in an email. For your information, your current edit summary usage is 49% for major edits and 49% for minor edits. (Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace.)
This is just a suggestion, and I hope that I did not appear impolite. You do not need to reply to this message, but if you would like to give me feedback, you can do so at the feedback page. Thank you, and happy edits, Mathbot 01:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] SP reference
My reference for the South Park DVDs are from amazon.com. The Paramount re-releases for Seasons 1 & 2 were released in '04 but because SP was originally released under Warner Bros. they have an earlier date which comes from http://tvshowsondvd.com. Hope that helps. Sfufan2005 04:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] link
How did you link to that specific page, the addy never changes when you click a new section (unlike most websites where the http address will change to each individual page). Kryptonsite doesn't really have a Season 5 page, they have a Season 5 episode log. Bignole 03:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- see when I hover over it nothing shows up. My addy says http://kryptonsite.com for every page. I have firefox but i don't like using it. Just used to IE. But, the way you have the link set up now I can agree with. I think it serves a better purpose going to both the episode log and the main page. Bignole 03:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Adventure Soft
Hi, you wanted some sources for some bits on voice acting info I put on the Adventure Soft article. It used to say it on their website, but it has been greatly cut down, here are two quick sources I found.
For the Feeble Files: [1] And for Simon: [2]
Is that enough? Cheers, Ben j min 19:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Renaming on wikibooks
Hey ive been renaming some pages in a wikibook to match the new naming convention, i was wondering if there was anyway to see all the pages in the module? Is this something only administrators can do? Is there a better way to clear all the orphaned redirects than proding them? Can I ask an admin to speedy them? Discordance 13:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- I haven't been to wikibooks in a while. You can see all subpages by using the allpages page. To see all subpages of the Electronics module, go to here, for instance. You should leave the redirects so that people following old links get to the right page. It looks like there's a bot that will do all this work for you, though. — Omegatron 14:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Point of stubs on future episodes
If you're wondering what is the point of stubs about stubs on TV episodes that haven't aired yet, please take a look at the edit history of "The Perfect Castaway." ShutterBugTrekker 22:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- I understand, I too like to avoid spoilers. In my opinion, the future tvshow framework helps to isolate spoilers so they're easier to avoid. ShutterBugTrekker 22:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] yo discordance,hope im doing this right
hey discordance,i was the guy helping with the gantz article. was gonna ask you-what did yu mean by"damage their sales" in regard to screenshots? like spoilers? if i were to break the rules,would i get sued or wikipedia? not that i want either to happen. and i actully havent seen the last part of the anime but i know some of it from an altavista babelfish translation of gantz otaku. well peace!
[edit] Re: Criticism of Family Guy
See my reply on the talk page. I'm willing to help with the cleanup, however I believe once it's cleaned up there will barely be any information on the page. In case you didn't know, this article was created when Family Guy was nominated for an FAC and people complained that the article was too long. The nominator, instead of cleaning up the current article, moved a bunch of the sections to separate articles. I think that having a separate article for criticisms simply invites too much cruft. Jtrost (T | C | #)
[edit] South Park re:
You claim I'm inserting "POV" into the South Park political discussion subsection. That's nonsense, the creators of the show obviously come from a pro-life point of view, which I mention in the neutral tone of "arguably pro-life", since they mock Christopher Reeve, show stem cell research opponents as heros, and other such things. That's not POV, it seems only to be POV because you don't like the facts regarding it. Stop deleting it.--134.210.83.146 19:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] reformat family guy table?
I dont have the skills to do this, but you reformat if you could, since it could help prevent future confusion
4 [25+ ] [2005 – 2006] [November 29, 2005] [3] [April 24, 2006] 4 (DVDIMAGE vol3)
[Spring 2006 ] [4] [Fall 2006? ] 5 (DVDIMAGE vol4)
thanks, the dates might not be correct, but if you could put it in that format it would be better i believe. Just leave the spaces blank to the left of the Spring/Summer entry to avoid confusion as to people thinking season 4 was divided into 2. I also am aware that it might not line up perfectly on your screen, but the dates should be underneath each otherG11 03:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
You can use the image on this link as a placeholder for volume 4 http://www.tvshowsondvd.com/newsitem.cfm?NewsID=4598 G11 03:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Alcoholic proof
On your modification to Template:Infobox Beverage i see that you added alcohol by volume. Proof is just alcohol/volume multiplied by two. Why is this additional field necessary? --Larsinio 16:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- Alright thanks for the clairifaciton. Sorry for being a silly american! --Larsinio 16:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mother Demon Merge
Hi Dis, I just came across the Mother Demon page and found that you had suggested it be merged with List of enemies in Doom (please add edit summary on something so important :^) Thats a good suggestion but you need to add a merge tag to both the pages you wish to merge together rather than just the one Wikipedia:Merging_and_moving_pages. I've added a merge tag to 'List of enemies in Doom' now so hopefully they will be joined sometime soon. Best Regards -- Shimirel (Talk) 03:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply, No sweat always happy to help. Your right about that target page getting a bit on the large side 50 odd kb if memory serves! Still it was (is?) the greatest first person shooter of all time so its worth it. SuggestBot listed the page for me to look at because I usually work on demon/angels pages so it sent me off on a bit of a tangent that time! -- Shimirel (Talk) 13:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Lost epidoses
Not really, User:Cws125 created an article for each one of the episodes, but another user then redirected them to List of Lost episodes. About "convincing" other editors before editing articles, I recommend that you read Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages and Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. —Joseph | Talk 16:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I am not claiming that I "own" the articles. I am upholding the consensus reached by myself and other authors. If you or other authors wish to start additional Lost articles you must first discuss it. That's just good faith. Additionally, I have removed the 3RR template you put on my talk page because I did not violate it nor did I unjustly blank content. I believe you added those templates to patronize me. Please be civil about this issue and please do not ignore all the hard work we have done in the past. Jtrost (T | C | #) 19:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Please tell me where you think I violated the 3RR rule. Jtrost (T | C | #) 19:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- I am again removing these "alerts" from my talk page. You have no reason to add them. There is no edit warring going on with Episodes of Lost. My last edit was made over 24 hours ago and I stopped once I discovered Joseph had no intention of talking this through. Jtrost (T | C | #) 19:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] May I ask...
... what you think about this? De mortuis... 19:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Family Guy Images -- Fair Use
Hey, was wondering if you wanted to help me go through all the images and specify why they are fair use. I was going to, but wanted to discuss it with you first since you delt with the South Park ones. What criteria should be placed for fair use? You can contact me on my talk page, or AIM: lightdarkness42. --lightdarkness (talk) 01:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] This is coming a little late, but...
Where does it say the image on the Family Guy episode list must retain to the main plot? It's a friggin cartoon (a very good one anyway). The Republican 02:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Seinfeld
Hey Discordance, I would like to ask a favor of your support on the List of Seinfeld episodes page since another user is planning to merge the article much to my chagrin. And since you handeled the South Park article flawlessly, I'd like to hear your opinion on the Seinfeld page. Sfufan2005 14:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Thank you so much for your support! Sfufan2005 18:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] For your efforts in Family Guy
| Image:FGBarnstar.png | The Family Guy Barnstar | |
| I award this barnstar for your valiant efforts to keep the images in the List of Family Guy episodes. I hope the rest will come back soon! The Republican 19:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC) |
[edit] Fair use debate regarding television screencaps
Currently, there is a debate on Talk:List of Lost episodes regarding whether or not use of a 1/30th stillframe visual excerpt next to a list of audiovisual works (such as List of Lost episodes or List of Family Guy episodes) is in accordance with WP:Fair use, and has even resulted in the protection of the page.
If you have any opinions regarding fair use on the List of Lost episodes page, please feel free to express them as I believe these two pages are sister projects.
Cws125 05:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Question about SUBPAGENAME
I saw your [posting] about Wikibooks renaming policy. Thank you for bringing us the option to use SUBPAGENAME variable. My question is how can I make a page (module) in my Wikibook show just the subpagename at the top of the page in the large letters? For example, I don't want the large first line of the page (module) to be: BookName/ChapterName/SectionName but instead I just want to see SectionName at the top of the page, and then the backlinks immediately under the page name will show the hierarchy as << BookName/ChapterName. Thank you very much for any advice. KHatcher 13:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject South Park
I have thought of creating a WikiProject for South Park since it is now near its' 10th anniversary and has more articles than ever. I feel we could all do the following things through this project:
- Cleanup any short/poorly written/unformatted articles
- Merge/lengthen the many character articles
- Improve the South Park main page
I have seen your South Park fan template and wondered if you were interested in joining. If so reply to my talk page and I'll get back to you as quick as I can. Thanks, Mr. Garrison
[edit] Copyrighted image
Your user page uses this image. Since it is copyrighted it cannot be used anywhere else but in the article it is illustrating, see WP:FUC #9. I've taken the liberty of deleteing it for you, I'm sorry if upsets you, thanks Naufana : talk 01:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
