This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Hey I wonder. The infobox picture reads something but the letters are too small for me to read. By the whay is there any page wich show this kind of posters. For example similiar to Gossip Girl (Season 5) and 90210 (Season 4). Left4Deadseries FAN ( talk) 18:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Jayy, The James Lafferty quote you removed is quoted from E! Online, its been used in the article elsewhere, standards in terms of sources? Oh, and sorry for forgetting about source for the Kinston airport shoot.-- Jakobalewis ( talk) 13:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Hey Jayy,
Just a quick question, can you give me the source that specifies Chad's episode count??
I hope its more than one ep!
B.Davis2003 ( talk) 02:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Hey, Jayy008, I don't feel that this section you created but removed is inappropriate when aiming for GA (Good Article status). It's hardly any different than having a Cancellation section. Flyer22 ( talk) 18:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
OK, well if you prefer I wouldn't nominate Scott and Sawyer, I won't. You've put so much work into them! Also as for Murray returning without Burton, I think the storyline works. Lucas returns to help Haley after Nathan is kidnapped, I don't think Lucas would want to bring Peyton or Sawyer into that situation. As for Deb, I hope they're bringing her back because they realize her exit was horrible last time, either way, I'm more happy about Woods. Jayy008 ( talk) 18:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Jayy,
Why revert the edit, it was perfectly relevant and reliable? B.Davis2003 ( talk) 00:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
There isn't a guideline on such. Most of the time we just leave it as the defaulted color. The only times when I have seen a color change has been when the color is a thematical representation of the show (e.g., The Simpsons). Other than that, it's a preference thing and so long as it's not distracting when reading it should be a decision made by the community of editors that monitor that page. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi! My name is Paul! I'm working on 90210 pages in Russian Wikipedia - I've just found out, that Annie Wilson page does exist in English project, but for some reasons that page titled User:Dodomh95. Can you give it character name? Thnx. -- 194.226.8.133 ( talk) 18:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I really don't know why it is doing that because it works in your other section. It's also not working in this talk page section .
data-sort-value="" style="background: #ececec; color: #2C2C2C; vertical-align: middle; text-align: center; " class="table-na" | —
I would should a message over to the template talk page and ask them what might be creating the problem. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Ah, alright. LOL @ some random users putting the GA icon on the article. Haven't seen something like that before. Hoping to get the article to GA soon, so it would be good if we could work together on it (seeing as you have experience with TV articles - in which I don't have much). Anyways, how do you like the show? Personally, I cannot stop thinking about it. It's so damn good! — Status { talk contribs 19:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Hey, But should it be removed cause its now past tense?? Just trying to make the table look cleaner :) B.Davis2003 ( talk) 23:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Jayy008 I just want to say thanks for your support in the Pan Am article! When ordering the cast, I SIMPLY ordered them how they were ordered after the first intro of episode 1, however the other users on that page insist on having it their way, which is a completely fan based opinion. Hang in there, we will prevail :P Only 3 months till OTH returns! :D B.Davis2003 ( talk) 05:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
( talk page stalker)No, we are not insisting on "having it [our] way", we are looking to to do the best thing for the article based on accepted Wikipedia practice. Our opinions are not "fan based", either. Remember WP:AGF? If you've forgotten, you should both remember it. Because, frankly, your comments above, B. Davis2003, seem quite "rude, uncivil, [and very much like] a personal attack." Thanks. Lhb1239 ( talk) 15:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
No, not really—I skimmed the page and saw what was appropriate and what wasn't—Asking for other users' opinions is allowed. I posted on the Project as it was the best place to ensure as many unbiased editors who are experienced in editing television articles would voice their opinion. The other two posts I made were on people's talk-pages as they popped up in my watch-list and I saw they was online and editing television. I'm afraid in my defense I'm allowed to defend myself when it comes to accusations the other editor accused me (to you) of ownership issues on a page I had never edited before. PS. I didn't check the dates, and I was purposely making an exaggerated statements when I said "straight away". Jayy008 ( talk) 16:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
@Drmargi, I am interpreting it how it was meant - An insult. Also, I've explained the canvas things, which you have either chosen to not read or ignored just so you can continue writing whatever you want. Jayy008 ( talk) 16:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Ar, how bad is this "news" because I still love One Tree Hill...... B.Davis2003 ( talk) 00:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
If the consensus is to put it in credit order then it needs to be edited that way. Now, I know they said "consensus is not a vote", but if it's an overwhelming majority then that is consensus. If a select group of editors refuses to accept the supposed consensus, then you will need to probably start an WP:RfC or request an Admin to overseas the discussion and make a final decision based on the responses (go to WP:DISPUTE to request such feedback). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Hey Jayy. Just wanted to offer a piece of advice. I know that the conversation about this issue has been really heated but from my perspective reading over the whole mess again, I don't think the direction the conversation has been going in most recently is helping any. I totally understand why you feel the way you do about the talk page comments between Lbh and Drmargi but 1) I seriously don't think they were intending to insult you (I really think their main concern is making the article useful to readers and that they felt you were more forceful than you felt you were) and 2) regardless of their intent, the way Wikipdia works, trying to call them out the way you have been isn't going to help.
Put another way, let's say for the sake of argument that you are 100% correct in your assessment of their conversation; the manner in which you've been trying to communicate your feelings about the matter may not be taken well by administrators or commenters who weigh in on the rfc that Drmargi requested (or those that you asked for at the tv project). I know sometimes that seems really unfair; it's totally natural to want to defend yourself when you feel you've been wrongly accused by someone. But I've seen it go down time and again around this place; third parties drop in for an rfc and things go pear shaped because someone got defensive, even if understandably so.
You've explained your reasoning for your preferred order; Lhb and Drmargi have done likewise. At this point all that all three of you are doing is discussing each others' intent. It's going to make it even more confusing for rfc commenters to make sense of it all when half of the arguments they are wading through have nothing to do with the content anymore. Take a breather, homie. Every time I get overinvested in something like this, when I take a break from the issue, I communicate much better. Wait for some rfc people to come in and respond to their questions or comments later. You'll feel better for it. And everyone will be better able to clarify any points that they need to for the third opinion peeps. In the long run this conversation WILL make the article better no matter how rfc turns out, and it will help improve the TV MOS as well. Millahnna ( talk) 17:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Please help me understand how you came to the conclusion that the new edits (including those that had references attached to them) at the H8R article were "vandalism". Thanks. Lhb1239 ( talk) 17:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Why is it not aloud then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rui78901 ( talk • contribs) 21:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Then if this page isn't aloud, then why is there pages for nearly every glee character? Like Sam Evans, Lauren Zizes and Holly Holliday, some of them are only recurring characters/Guest stars and Sam isn't even it anymore. but, I'm not aloud to create a page for a character who has been a main character for four seasons, for four years. Discrimination! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rui78901 ( talk • contribs) 21:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough, the article I edited created ticked every box. Annie killed a man, was shunned by her friends, stalked by the man she killed's Nephew, was involved in a love triangle with her boyfriend and his brother, was being single white female by her physico cousin, dealing with her parents divorce, caring for an elderly lady who later commited suicide, was proposed to by her boyfriend, later rejected him, was falling for some stranger who turned out to be a family member for the elderly ladies family who was fighting for her will to be change, so she couldn't get anything, then becomes an escort to try and pay her college tuition's. If that's not character development, then I dont know what is. But, somehow a glee character who is prancing around singing has more character development? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rui78901 ( talk • contribs) 21:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
You could of warned me that you were deleting the article. I would off added more stuff to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rui78901 ( talk • contribs) 22:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply - I didn't see your further note until I was archiving my long talk page. I'ts semi automatic. It does not work when you log on or off because many users, like me, are permanently logged in - that's the reason for the changer. If you install the script and clear the browser cache, you will then see a row of links on the very top of your user and talk pages: online, busy, around, offline, sleep. if you click on one of those, it will open a page with the new status. Just close the page. The next time you open your user or talk page you will see that the status has changed. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 06:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! Jayy008 ( talk) 17:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
this is your only warning from me regarding your recent edit summaries containing personal attacks-- Lhb1239 ( talk) 20:31, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Hey Jamie, nice to hear from you. Thanks for the watch, but I trust Mark's (Efe) edits 100%. I took a look and he just tweaked the wording etc. Thanks! BTW, have you seen the commercial for her interview where she reveals dem babies? :D-- CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 01:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Please stop edit warring at the article Hart of Dixie. Your reversion of perfectly good edits (not under scrutiny, by the way) are disruptive and seem to be based on WP:POINT. If you continue in this vein, I will be forced to take this activity - along with what is starting to seem like harassment on my talk page and at articles I am editing and previous civility behaviors - to an administrator's noticeboard. I really don't want to have to do that. Please reconsider what you're doing and how it is disruptive to the project. Lhb1239 ( talk) 18:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
You've been blocked before? When? The block log associated with your account doesn't indicate that. Is Jayy008 your only account here or were you blocked under another account? Lhb1239 ( talk) 19:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Please reply at the bottom, whatever you're replying to. You have made those accusations before, but obviously that's okay. Either way, I have reported the situation to an admin, which you'll likely be blocked for your WP:3RR breaking. Any others issues I will address at a later time. Jayy008 ( talk) 19:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, WP:N actually applies to entire articles. It's a test to see whether a subject can have its own article. It doesn't really apply to content within the article. Using primary sources is actually permitted by Wikipedia:No original research. Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources provides that "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them" Using the RTE website simply to prove that it airs Pan Am is acceptable. If the claim in the article had been that it only airs on RTE Two, that would not have been acceptable. WP:THIRDPARTY says that articles "must be based upon verifiable statements from multiple third-party reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", but that doesn't exclude the use of primary sources. -- AussieLegend ( talk) 19:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
It just depends. If you choose the "Actor as Character" route then it needs to end in a colon, because "John as Gary" is not a complete sentence. If you use a colon then it becomes a more appropriate structure for the listing. Looking at the page and the disagreement, this is my opinion: There is no restriction on how "portray" is used. It can be used to indicate real people or fictional people. It just means to act out the role of another individual. There is no problem with using "portray" or even the "Actor as Character" approach. The only difference is that if you use the "Actor as Character" approach it needs to be with a colon, because using a period indicates that you're treating it like a sentence. If that was the case it would be the most unprofessional sentence structure you could have. But, if you use the "Actor as Character" approach, then they all need to be that way. It cannot be a mixed bag of every approach to listing the cast. So, there just needs to be an agreement on which approach to use and then stick with it. If you want a complete sentence approach, then "Actor as Character" isn't the best option. If you just want to list the cast and then write a prose bit afterward, then use the "Actor as Character" technique. You can also bypass it all and use the "Character (Actor)" approach and just write it out from the start. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I have nothing to add to this conversation. Thanks Bignole for getting back to me, though. I have made a few changes, but I'm not interested in fighting the "as" "portray" thing, it's too stressful. Jayy008 ( talk) 18:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Why did you revert two edits even Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Friends exists.?-- nijil ( talk) 19:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Why should it be what you want it to be? She's recurring for she appeared in multiple episodes and in multiple seasons and was credited for all her appearances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.86.24.28 ( talk) 13:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't base it on who I like best, I base on the amount op episodes and seasons someone is credited in. She was credited in multiple season in over four episodes, making her a recurring character. She went when Damon broke up with her in the nineteenth episode of season two and returned in the season three premiere and thus didn't appear in only one story line as guest stars do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.86.24.28 ( talk) 13:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
The article 90210 (season 3) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:90210 (season 3) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Jezhotwells ( talk) 00:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Please explain to me why Tracy Clark, Dana Bowen, Sasha, Oscar, Charlie Shelby and Ian are recurring characters if they only had a guest arc that occurred during half a season? and why then Jeffrey and Colleen Sarkossian and Katherine Upton are guest stars, although they popped up during an entire season? JWHolland ( talk) 10:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
There is a current RfC at the Hart of Dixie talk page. You are being notified because you have commented in the past on this article. Lhb1239 ( talk) 20:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
If you look through the Reliable Sources Noticeboard archives, [1] you'll see that the various discussions citing TVByTheNumbers have never agreed upon whether or not it is a reliable source. However, the opinions tend to fall more toward it being classed as reliable. There has never been discussion on TVLine but I don't see it as not being reliable. -- AussieLegend ( talk) 17:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I watched the closing credits of an episode on the CW website. The ABC Studios vanity card was shown along with the other production companies. I mostly watch the episodes through torrents, where the closing credits are cut out most of the time. Quasy Boy 17:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Do you know whether or not TV.com is considered a reliable source in Wikipedia? Lhb1239 ( talk) 20:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Fine do whatever you whant I dont't care. God. It's not like we'll die from reverting pages. But Okay if thats what you whant I wont help anyone with page that has anything to do with 90210 or anything like it it. Happy. -- Left4Deadseries FAN ( talk) 18:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Dude seriusly? You watch Gossip Girl? I do to and it is my favorite show. I wish every characters page was like that. Or atleast like Clear Rivers. Well Annie Wilson's page was okay I guess so the reason it was deleted it was because it didn't have many references right? Well I did ad something inf the Final Destination 3 page and I also wrote where I found the information, when and when it was writen. If you whant me to do that to other pages I will try and do it. -- Left4Deadseries FAN ( talk) 18:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for merging the season pages back to one page. I was going to do myself sometime this week. :) Quasy Boy 20:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
You know what, I wonder if the rankings are using the +7 as well, because the "202" placement has a figure that is higher than the "SAME DAY" figure from the second source. Given that the ranking indicates that it uses repeats (and shows that it is including 8 extra episodes), that figure would assumingly be lower than the SAME DAY figure from the second source. Given that it isn't, I wonder if they are using the final figures, which are not released until a week later because of the +7 statistic that cannot be calculated until 7 days later. Does that make sense? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Hey Jayy, Hows things?? Looking forward to OTH returning next year!? I AM! Anyways, what I'm writing about is your view on the OTH Characters page, I don't remember your reasons for not allowing tables like this... Gilmore Girls (please scroll down to the characters section :) B.Davis2003 ( talk) 06:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
The article Gossip Girl (season 4) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Gossip Girl (season 4) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Jezhotwells ( talk) 00:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
The article One Tree Hill (season 8) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:One Tree Hill (season 8) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Jezhotwells ( talk) 00:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Articles on seasons of television shows are considered class=list. The Gossip Girl (season 4) you have worked on is very similar to Featured Lists such as 30 Rock (season 4) and The O.C. (season 4). You should nominate the article at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates for a review. maclean ( talk) 21:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
The article One Tree Hill (TV series) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:One Tree Hill (TV series) for things which need to be addressed. Jezhotwells ( talk) 02:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Jayy, I'm stopping by to let you know that I was able to get a copyeditor for this article. See User talk:September88#Copyedit the One Tree Hill (TV series) article? Flyer22 ( talk) 10:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:MichaelNikita.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}
to your talk page.
Thank you.
DASHBot (
talk)
06:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
★*★*★*★*★*★*★*★* Merry Christmas And Happy New Year 2012 *★*★*★*★*★*★*★*★ | ||
I Wish You And Your Family A Merry Christmas And A Happy New Year 2012. May The New Year Bring Much Happiness, Prosperity, Peace, And Success In Your Life. I Am Very Happy To be Part of Wikipedia And To Have Great Friends Like You. Cheers.
- From A Big Fan of ----> Jivesh1205 ( Talk) 16:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC) |
You are welcome my friend. And I am very happy to hear that. Jivesh1205 ( Talk) 16:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)