User talk:George Ho/Mentorship discussions/archive/2012

:This page is an archive of matters relating to George Ho's unblock / mentorship. If an item here needs further discussion, please restore it to the active discussion page. Please do not edit this page.

"No plot" and "more plot"

Template:No plot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:More plot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My proposal:

These "plot" templates are totally pointless and totally contradicts {{

WP:NOT#PLOT. Why is there a need to expand or add a plot in one article? Well, List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters have abstract of each character, but it also has a reception. Storm in a Teacup (film) doesn't need to expand a plot, does it? Reception is enough to help the article survive. Articles of The Golden Girls characters, such as Dorothy Zbornak, have bunch of plot expansions and lacked real-world coverages. Should articles of porn films, such as A Young Man's World and Men of Israel

, need plot sections or plot expansions or none?

Is there anything wrong with this proposal message? --George Ho (talk) 09:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The templates seem to have a purpose to me. The logic goes as follows.

If all works of fiction should have a plot summary (as part of the article, not all or nearly all of it):

• If the plot summary is too short needs improvement, tag it with {{More plot}}.
• If there is no plot summary, tag it with {{No plot}}.

Now, as you know, I'm not a tag fan, but I can see the logic.

The stuff you mentioned fits in like this, I think:

• {{No plot}} - this article should have a plot summary, but doesn't - please add one.
• {{More plot}} - this article has a plot summary, but it's too short - please expand it. it needs improvement. Please edit it to improve it.
• WP:NOT#PLOT
  - an article shouldn't be just a plot summary, with very little else.
• {{all plot}} - this article fails WP:NOT#PLOT - it is almost entirely a plot summary. Please expand it to cover other aspects of the subject.

All those things can be said in different circumstances.

I suspect that your real confusion is that you don't really agree with "All works of fiction should have a plot summary"? Is that right? Because I'm not sure I agree with that statement on the template either. That doesn't mean they have no use, though, maybe just clarification of purpose.Begoon ^talk 09:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, ...yes if you're implying that. Articles of porn films do not need plot summary because... they're plotless with enormous sex scenes, although a plot section is beneficial, especially for GA and FA articles. The whole "Plot summary is needed or must be expanded" thing is just a guideline and can be ignored. These templates make room for bad editing, such as Aubrey Wentworth, even if not used. ......If "no plot" is needed, then "more plot" must go. Otherwise, both must vanish. --George Ho (talk) 10:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately I disagree that a template should be deleted because it is used wrongly. That's a reason to fix the template or address the poor use. It should only be deleted if it has no good use, and I can imagine good uses for all these templates. I suppose if you could show a large number of examples of misuse, and no, or few examples of good use, that could be a case - but I haven't researched that. Think about it - if article maintenance tags were deleted because people use them badly, I could make a case for deleting nearly every tag that exists. Begoon ^talk 10:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

And yes, the Aubrey Wentworth article is a diabolical mess of spewed plot trivia. It's horrible in a way words can't express. But deleting these templates will not stop that happening. Really.Begoon ^talk 10:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if I need to make another point to have both gone. [1] and [2]. What does a casual reader want: a plot or reception? If I want to read the plot, I should do so to avoid reading the book, especially a horror novel, such as Children of the Corn and The Lottery. If a reception, then I must know whether a work is interesting or not. Well, I'm not sure if I want these templates kept. --George Ho (talk) 20:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, this casual reader wants an equal measure of both. I'd like to be able to see what the film / book etc. is about, and how well it was received. To me, it's all about balance. A good article, for me, covers all aspects of the subject in sufficient depth, but doesn't overdo coverage in particular areas.

The templates do often seem to be used pretty poorly, but I think that's more to do with the editors than the templates. There are a lot of bad articles with regard to usage of plot summary, but I'm afraid I don't agree that deleting these tags would help much. People will still write articles like the one you linked above, and others will still need to decide what to do with the "junk" they add. Templates won't stop them adding it, and won't fix it once it's added.

If you still want to xFD the "more plot" template, could you try writing a better rationale than the one above? I guess there could be a case that there are other templates that would be just as good if the "plot" needs expanding. You'll need to say how an editor would mark the problem of "not enough" plot detail without this template, though, or it'll be opposed for that reason. In a deletion rationale, try to stick to policy reasons for deletion as much as possible - if you need to show examples, use diffs and be clear with your reasons. Begoon ^talk 21:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I checked the articles that transclude the "more plot" template, and the articles that transclude it have already sufficient plot abstract, even with only one sentence of a plot. I think they added "more plot" just to resemble an article that may have chances to be GA or FA. Still, there is no use to have "more plot".

WP:NDA. One sentence is enough for, generally, porno films; how many sentences make a plot sufficient for general reader? --George Ho (talk

) 22:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you can look at it in terms of number of sentences. For example, you mentioned "Storm in a Teacup", and that's probably just fine with a couple of sentences as it is. You could expand it a bit if you wanted to, to balance the Reception section, but it's fine as a short description. Then look at

Nineteen-Eighty Four

. That's fine too. As I said above, it's a question of balance in any particular article. If the 1984 plot was the length of the Teacup one, that would be a perfect case for a "more plot" tag.

And, once again, remember that the template isn't breaking the guideline - it's incorrect use of the template which does that. If it's pretty much only ever used wrongly, then that would be an issue, but remember that relies on other people having the same view you do as to "how much" plot is the right amount, and that will probably be what throws any nomination like this off course. When you nominate something, you need to think of the obvious objections and have answers ready for them, or cover them in advance in your nomination. Begoon ^talk 23:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, here's another proposal, this time, only for "more plot":

"More plot" may not violate

Concentrating on plot more than real-world context hurts the quality of an article, such as Aubrey Wentworth, Rose Nylund, and Frasier Crane

.

Is this a better proposal? --George Ho (talk) 02:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

It's better, but the problem is you are "asking yourself questions" in the proposal. That makes it seem like you are not sure why you are nominating the template. You don't cite any real policy reasons for wanting to delete, either - the template doesn't contravene

WP:PLOT, though some uses of it may encourage that. I'm going to have a better look through those transclusions to see how it is being used. Begoon ^talk

02:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I'm stopping at the first one in the list. I should have read the template wording and docs more closely. At Tekkonkinkreet, the tag reads "This section needs an improved plot summary. Please edit this article to provide one.". And that's true. The plot summary looks like notes from a bookjacket or sleeve notes, and needs rewriting to be neutral and objective. Maybe the template just needs moving to {{plot improve}} or something? Don't take any of what I'm saying the wrong way, though - I agree that there are very many terrible plot summaries in articles, and I'm seeing even more doing this with you. I just don't think deleting templates is a way to address it. I wonder if it's already covered by a WikiProject, or if there'd be any interest in setting one up for improving plot summaries? That's just an idle thought - don't go rushing off and setting one up (lol) I'll carry on looking through the list...Begoon ^talk 03:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Tekkonkinkreet plot needs copyediting, not expansion. The template is for discussion, not deletion. There is "discussion", not "deletion". Maybe I need another proposal for discussion, not deletion, do I? --George Ho (talk) 03:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the template description needs fixing, renaming seems a good idea, and I think some education in how it should be used seems like it would help. But yes, it calls for "improvement" - not "expansion". Here's my quick survey anyway:

Here are the first 10:

• Tekkonkinkreet - see above.
• Lemonade Mouth - more complex. The plot summary itself needs improving, so "more" tag correct in that sense, but the rest of the article consists of character summaries which are really "plot dumps" - so NOTPLOT is a correct overall tag.
• Outlaw (novel) - I wouldn't disagree with removing the "more" tag.
• Dharma Seelan - I wouldn't disagree with removing the "more" tag.
• Holy Warrior - I wouldn't disagree with removing the "more" tag.
• King's Man - I wouldn't disagree with removing the "more" tag.
• Insurrection (Young novel) - I think a little more plot desc. would help here.
• The Whale Road - could be "improved" i.e. better written - probably long enough
• The Wolf Sea - I wouldn't disagree with removing the "more" tag.
• The White Raven (novel) - I wouldn't disagree with removing the "more" tag.

So, 60% of them I agree might be tagged wrong. You need to bear in mind you'll get a different answer whoever does that analysis, and also, I'll say this, I would probably get high results for any tag like this - but you are correct that it is often misused. The question becomes how to address that misuse without losing a template that has a valid use. Just one last note on the "survey" - it's a very small sample, and in each case the plot summary "could" be improved - just like any article could. It just doesn't need tagging in those examples, imo. Begoon ^talk 03:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Simple, address it in TFD:

This template needs to be discussed, not deleted. Many articles that transclude this template are wrongly tagged, and they have already sufficient plot abstracts. The link is of an essay within a template and is not reliable to be obeyed. Here are transclusions and see for yourself: [3]. Also, "More plot" title contradicts the words and doc of this template; maybe separate from "more plot" into "copyedit plot" and be bold on this template?

How is this proposal? --George Ho (talk) 03:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll vote for a rename and a rewrite of the documentation if you make that proposal. It is, as you say, templates for discussion, so yes, looks fine to me. Refer to this discussion too, if you like.

I edited a bit, because I'm a fiddler, but it's just a suggestion:

This template needs to be discussed, not deleted. Many articles that transclude this template are wrongly tagged, and they already have sufficient plot summaries. The link is to an essay within a template, not to policy, and needs to be altered. Here are transclusions as examples of the problem: [4]. Also, the "More plot" name contradicts the words and doc of this template; so a rename from "more plot" to "copyedit plot" might be in order, and help reduce incorrect usage. Begoon ^talk 04:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

This is now discussed in Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 February 21#Template:More plot. --George Ho (talk) 05:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry - that was my bad advice. I should have considered that it might be deemed out of process there, as it's not proposing a merge or delete, and suggested you start an RM first. I'll not fall for that again... :-)

Still, that's just a procedure error, so nothing to worry about. Fixing the problem is more important, and the good thing to come out of it is to see some people who share your exact opinion. That must make a nice change from coming to this page and feeling like I pull everything you suggest to pieces...Begoon ^talk 07:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The Tfd resulted as keep. Fastily recommends RFC for more discussion in Template talk:more plot. What issue of a template should we first discuss? By the way, I created a "did you know?" hook of A Young Man's World that was featured on the main page, which resulted 3,865 views on March 10. --George Ho (talk) 02:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I know - congratulations on the DYK and the page views, that's excellent, well done.

I'd personally just do an RM to {{improve plot}}, and fix up the documentation to better describe the correct usage and discourage incorrect use. But have a think about it first and see if you think that covers everything or not. Begoon ^talk 03:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Monthly review

Sorry this is late. I'm adding this as a free discussion section for any comments related to the mentorship process to date, now, and moving forward. Please add any comments below. Thanks. Begoon ^talk 01:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:very long

Template:Very long (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Here is my TFD or RFC proposal:

This template... em... may have been "relevant" years ago because long articles would be hard to navigate. However, I have requested its section counterpart, Template:very long section, to be created in WP:requested templates.

While the counterpart is not used often right now, "Very long" is becoming less relevant, as quality of articles matter more than navigating any article. Putting "very long" at top of an article... hard to describe except would make the (very) long but exceptionally well-written, structured, referenced article appear the oppose of what it already is.

For example, Social Security (United States) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Cat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) don't need to be tagged to inform readers that long is "bad"; in fact, I removed this template from top of each other because I thought this template was unnecessary.

Currently 436 articles use this template, as well as 13 and 23 more use each redirect: [5][6][7]

You don't have to reply right now, but let me know your thoughts about above. --George Ho (talk) 10:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from. You think this is like {{expand}}? There are similarities and differences.

• One of the problems here is the 450(ish) articles already using the tag - you need to include in the proposal what would happen to them. Do we need to look at every one, and decide which sections to tag instead, or to tag nothing? If so, the proposal would need to say so.
• You also need to explain what one would do with an article with 15 sections that are all too long. 15 tags? With the lack of {{expand}}, in the opposite situation, you can just stick {{stub}} or a number of other things on it, like tagged empty sections - not sure what you'd do in this case.

Now - I'm not saying you're wrong, but this would be likely to be a reasonably big discussion. When I'm faced with those I like to take it slowly.

I'll tell you what I'd do. I'd start a small discussion on the template talk page - something like: "Should this template be altered to be applied to sections only? ... rationale ...." and see what responses you get. Leave that for a while, see what happens, then if it seems to be gaining some traction, bump it up to an RFC.

This way you're not jumping straight into a big, widely advertised discussion with unknown support. You'll likely find things in the initial discussion that help formulate the later questions, assuming it all progresses.

If you think that sounds like a plan, I can help you write a concise question to kick it all off, if you like - the amount above is probably too much to start this way. Begoon ^talk 00:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Outline of this template:

• Its purpose: Inform readers that an article (or section) may be hard to navigate with large article size.
• Its use: Is it meant to be placed a top of the article or any long, inconvenient section?
• Its reliability/relevancy: Will this template go the way "expand" became?
• Look at
  WP:section
  .

As for the tags, I plan to inspect them without discussion before taking this template to TFD or RFC. If "very long" tag is less appropiate, then I must either remove it or replace it with another tag, such as "very long section". What do you think? --George Ho (talk) 01:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I think such an analysis would require more than just your eyes and opinion, and more than mine. Have the discussion with a wider audience first. It's an awful lot of time to potentially waste if the discussion goes another way. It may well be worth doing, but premature, and in this case probably too BOLD to change tags en masse, until an overall discussion gives some indication of consensus. Small steps will work better here, I think - there's no deadline. Begoon ^talk 01:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Should I address multiple issues at once or one issue at a time? If one issue, which should I discuss first? --George Ho (talk) 03:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Depends if you can say it all in one coherent statement or not. Your proposal should ideally be one well explained paragraph, not too long. Any more, and people might not read it all.

Ideally, just ask people to deal with one idea at a time. If that can include multiple issues, then fine - but if it's too clumsy, consider addressing the most important issues first and separately.

If you want to have a stab at such a proposal here, we can then tweak it if necessary. Begoon ^talk 03:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Second proposal for "Very long"

Another proposal for either TFD or RFC:

This template... is it any longer useful? Most important issues of this template: its relevancy and reliability to be tagged at the top of this article. Even if there are 20 sections in one article, length and navigation may be less relevant than other more important issues of any article, such as needs of

editing the grammar, tone, and flow. For example, an article cat or social Security (United States) doesn't need fixing just because it may be "too long to navigate"; they are good as what they already are, especially because their own sections may not stand chances as their own articles.

Also, Template:very long section is a sidebox version of "very long"; its reliability and relevancy are irrelevant to discussion of "very long".

--George Ho (talk

Ok. I'd like to suggest some rewording, but I'll not have time until tomorrow. We can certainly create something worthy of an initial discussion along those lines. Begoon ^talk 07:06, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I honestly think that the best initial step is a simple discussion section on Template talk:Very long, just something like this. Let the discussion develop naturally from there.

I wonder how useful it is to tag a whole article as "too long" without any other information? The "desired" length of articles is somewhat subjective (despite guidelines). Similar to the case of {{expand}}, I wonder if this kind of tagging is better done only "per section" so that it is clearer how to fix the problem? Template:split and its descendants, and Template:very long section exist. Would they not be a better "fit" for this type of "tagging"? There are 4xx articles currently using this tag - is the tag helping to get them "fixed"? --sig--

You could add a bit more detail, but not too much - let the discussion develop itself from there. That's how I would approach it anyway.

Here's something I forgot to say above, though, to keep in your mind. It does matter if an article is too long, because large pages with lots of template syntax/images etc load more slowly, for instance taking several more seconds before javascript functions execute and become available at page load. I hate making quick edits to big pages because of this. And that's ADSL - dial up is still used in some places... Begoon ^talk 23:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Ahem. Good, improved proposal message. Loading times are irrelevant, however.. Writing quality matters more than loading times and number of sections. Here is additional message:

Template:split and its descendants already exist and may decrease the value of "very long". Also, Template:very long section is a sidebar counterpart of this template and should replace this template in sections.

Again, loading times are irrelevant to this discussion. --George Ho (talk) 00:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

No, George, loading times are not irrelevant. We write wikipedia for the reader. Most readers will come to wikipedia first to look something up, and often it will be a big, popular page they visit. If wikipedia is slower to load than other web pages on that subject, we have made a bad impression.

We could make a better impression by having a reasonably sized article that loads quickly, is easy and quick to navigate, and links to a relevant sub-article where appropriate.

That's just one aspect of it. Ease of editing for newcomers (big articles contain lots of wiki code - harder to find what you want to change), ease of navigation, there are lots of others.

It's far from irrelevant. It may not be what you envisaged you'd end up discussing about this template, but that's why these "pre-discussions" are useful - they alert you to what will be brought up.

(I amended the "proposal" text to include a comment about the alternative templates.)Begoon ^talk 01:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

This proposal looks good for TFD. However, are you sure that RFC is the best way? --George Ho (talk) 01:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Erm, I honestly think that the best initial step is a simple discussion section on Template talk:Very long. Begoon ^talk 01:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

And George - one question, if I may... Did you really not notice that I'd said that more than once? The only reason I ask is that sometimes that's what people complain about. They say you ignore the parts of their replies you don't like, and just post questions to try and get what you want. I disagree - I don't think that's what you are doing - but it can appear that way to others. Begoon ^talk 01:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I noticed recently that you suggested talk page twice. No need to add RFC tag then? I must remind you: I removed this template from Cat per its talk page because someone says that the template is unnecessary and ugly for "Cat". Sometimes, some administrators in xFD discussions appeared to have done the same to me. Maybe they tried to logicize in the same say I tried to logicize, unless I'm mistaken. --George Ho (talk) 01:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of that, Cat might be an interesting case study of why tagging sections instead of the article could be an improvement. The discussion on the talk page shows that the tag was not adequate to explain the "problem" there, if a problem exists. Not something for the initial post, but handy to bear in mind in subsequent discussion. Begoon ^talk 02:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Where to discuss first

No big thing here, but keep it in mind. If it looks like you're ignoring the bits you don't like, it can frustrate people who feel their comments are being ignored.

Do you really think it's a bad idea to start a simple discussion section first, see what reactions you get for a while, and then decide whether to stick an RFC tag on it? All it does is give you a chance to see if there are any initial comments that might lead you to modify your proposal before "going public"? I can't imagine why you would think that is a bad idea, unless you're just impatient to start an RFC. There is no deadline. Begoon ^talk 02:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, let's go to the talk page first. RFC tag or no RFC tag? By the way, here is my amended proposal, similar to yours with some adjustments:

I wonder if a whole article deserves to be tagged as "too long" without any other information? The "desired" length of articles is somewhat subjective (despite guidelines). Similar to the case of {{expand}}, I wonder if this template is better used for a section of an article, so a problem there would be properly addressed? Template:split and its descendants and Template:very long section exist. Would they not be a better "fit" for this type of "tagging"? There are over 400 articles currently using this tag — is the tag helpful and useful as a maintenance template?

--George Ho (talk) 01:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I fixed a wikilink in the text. You're asking "RFC tag or no RFC tag?" ?… I think you could possibly work out my opinion yourself, but if you want to add a tag right from the start, go ahead, it's just my opinion… Begoon ^talk 01:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The only other point I would make is that I actually liked the previous closing part. The point of a template is to get the articles "fixed". Asking if this template was helping to get the articles "fixed" is asking "is it doing its job?". I think it was ending the proposal by asking the right question. When I write a statement like that, I try to give it a start, middle, and end in a way, so that the reader is led through it.

You've changed it to "is the tag helpful and useful as a maintenance template?". Thing is, that's obviously what we want to discuss, so it doesn't add a lot. A bit like " so a problem there would be properly addressed" doesn't really improve "so that it is clearer how to fix the problem" in any way I can see. Begoon ^talk 01:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Another adjustment:

I wonder if a whole article deserves to be tagged as "too long" without any other information by placing it on top of an article. The "desired" length of articles is somewhat subjective (despite guidelines). Similar to the case of {{expand}}, I wonder if this template is better used for a section of an article, so an issue of a section is properly addressed enough to be fixed in the meantime. Template:split and its descendants and Template:very long section exist. Would they not be a better "fit" for this type of "tagging"? There are over 400 articles currently using this tag — is this template helpful and useful as an article or section maintenance addresser?

Hopefully, two sections have been improved. --George Ho (talk) 06:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, don't take this the wrong way, but

• "is this template helpful and useful as an article or section maintenance addresser" is an extremely complicated replacement for "is the tag helping to get them "fixed"?"
• "so an issue of a section is properly addressed enough to be fixed in the meantime" doesn't improve at all on "so that it is clearer how to fix the problem?".

All this really does is make a simple statement into an unnecessarily complicated one, and the replacements are not, in all honesty, easy to understand. You don't have to edit it at all, you know, certainly not just "for the sake of editing it" - you can just use it as it is, collaborative text produced by you and I based on your ideas. Begoon ^talk 06:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to try and round this off in terms of how the "mentorship" aspect applied here.

In the end, you still made an unnecessary change that makes the statement a bit "clumsier" - "deserve" doesn't really work here, for instance. "I wonder if a whole article deserves to be tagged as "too long" without any other information by placing it on top of an article. " instead of "I wonder how useful it is to tag a whole article as "too long" without any other information?" was your last change.

I don't understand what that change adds to the statement, and I'm not even fully sure what it means.

You probably think that is picky, but the sequence here is important. I'd already tried hard to suggest you didn't need to edit the statement unless you felt something was missing or wrong - but you went ahead again. It's a bit hard to "mentor" when that kind of sequence occurs, so I need your help.

I do understand that minor language issues can sometimes make phrasing difficult, but that's why I'm trying to help with this in particular.

I'm happy to spend time with you working on these nomination statements, because I think it's going to help you. I also think it's a very useful procedure for getting the issues clear before you "go live", and to decide on the best course of action.

It would be helpful if you gave the process some more time to complete, though, otherwise it makes things just a little frustrating for me. Thanks for your help. Begoon ^talk 04:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, but I have a long day. Well... I'm lost at words when I read it. If I screw up as a mentee, then I may risk be blocked again and may disappoint you. I just.... Now I'm totally neurotic about everything anymore because I screw up at EE and wonder if I screw up here and at that talk page. I made changes because using "useful" implies about usefulness of the template, and I don't want to do that. I just used "deserved" instead because I used "whole article" thing as a general sense. For example, does "Cat" deserve to be tagged as "very long"? "Usefulness" of a template no longer matters to me; however, maybe I made a bad job explaining it. --George Ho (talk) 06:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry if that upset you, George, but I can't "do the job" if I can't comment on things I think could have gone better. That's the job I took on - mentoring you, and it will include constructive criticism as well as praise. I tried very hard to phrase my comment so as not to upset you. I always do that. I'm not suggesting any kind of "screwing up as a mentee" has happened - I'm asking you to be a bit more patient sometimes while we discuss things, and let discussions reach a conclusion. If my post was long, it was in order to exercise that care to be accurate and not upset you. Begoon ^talk 06:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

No, "long" post did not upset me. Actually, you did your best, and I'm grateful that we have this discussion. Actually, sometimes I'm confident that that talk page will be slow, so I wonder how long the RFC template will expire. Well, I will take a look at the Template talk:expand to see how patient the users there were. Therefore, it may be helpful for both of us in the future. --George Ho (talk) 06:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I should add, because it demonstrates the point, that I now understand why you wanted to replace the word "useful". If you'd brought that here, we could have fixed it in a second, in a better way, because you're basically right. I'd have changed it to something like: "I wonder how well it is working to tag a whole article as "too long" without any other information?". - or any number of other things - it's not the content I'm concerned about - it's the fact that communication stopped. Begoon ^talk 06:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Next time I propose, I will break every sentence down into list format, either numbered or bulleted. How's that? --George Ho (talk) 07:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me, as long as we don't make it too complex. List format is often a good way to present the finished comment anyway (not always - but when more than one point is involved) - so starting with a numbered list is a pretty good idea. It can be changed to bulleted list or prose for posting, as desired. Good thinking. Begoon ^talk 07:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I have written User:George Ho/Manual of Style/Characters. However, I have not yet turn my essay into a Wikipedia essay yet. What can I do first? --George Ho (talk) 15:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

George, I think that's a great essay. There are a few places where a little copyediting might help comprehension, but it's generally excellent. I'd use permanent links to a particular version for the articles you are using as good/bad examples - because if the article changes it may no longer illustrate the points in the essay. I'm moving house this week, so I'm a bit time-pressed, but I will help you copyedit it a bit if you'd like me to - I just probably won't have much time for a few days. Begoon ^talk 09:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

File:UKTV.svg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have done

The two logos that was deleted was more complex than this one. So it sounds fair to me to delete some logos and keep others (and I think that this one could be ok to keep). As long as the file is not deleted on Commons I do not see a reason to request an undeletion of the file on en-wiki. --MGA73 (talk) 20:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

File:EDGE magazine (logo).svg would prove otherwise. In other words, threshold of originality is very low. --George Ho (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is low but the question is how low. Only the court can give us "the right answer". I think the E's in "EDGE" is more complex than the letters in UKTV. If you find UK logos on Commons you think are too complex you could start a DR there and see what the result will be. If the file is deleted you have very good reasons to ask for an undeletion on en-wiki. --MGA73 (talk) 20:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Cheers · ( talk | logs | links | watch | mfd ) · [revisions]

My proposal for

) 05:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

(Resolved) "Respect for commercial opportunities"

Resolved. Any image is profitable and commercial, regardless. Must follow terms and conditions if appliable.

What does this phrase mean for images? What if I use a mere promotional photo? File:Jaleel White Steve Urkel.jpg is nominated for FFD, and Magog and Hula consider them part of Getty. --George Ho (talk) 02:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC) I am seeing the problem. As I think I've explained before, Getty Images and other such agencies make money by selling images. They also buy them - they almost certainly had to come to some arrangement over licencing with ABC in respect of this one. If you can find the image on the Getty Images site, then it's on a commercial licence, and can only be used in Wikipedia under strict fair use, which means that the use must be transformative. It took me ages to work this out - Myra Hindley using hundreds of children's handprints. The minimum standard for 'transformative', is to put the picture in the article and talk about the picture - not the subject of the picture. In this case, I don't think you've got enough good evidence that this was a promotional picture. These are usually sent out by the studio with press releases etc, and turn up very widely, and don't turn up on the Getty Images website or credited to Getty. I note you have found an autographed version, suggesting it was at one point used as a promo, but Getty clearly hold it at the moment, as Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has linked to it on their website. It's in the Editorial category, see here for what that means. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC) Well I agree with what exactly Elen of the roads said. My thought is that these are exactly not credited to Getty- They actually sell these to make money- for commercial purposes. Now it's been used for Wikipedia, and thus shall follow a fair use policy strictly. That's what I have been telling so easy. Now I think you've understood it, right? Dipankan (Have a chat?) 11:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

(Archived) Either administrators or rules?

Archived - "All That Jazz → Lovin' You (Minnie Riperton song) still on debate for more than seven days. Please create newer discussion if necessary.

Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Closure review Wikipedia talk:Requested moves Talk:Trollhunter Talk:Lovin' You (Minnie Riperton song)#Move Talk:All That Jazz#‎Discussion of the RM Talk:Firestarter Talk:Loving You (disambiguation) Talk:It's Great to Be Alive (discussing only opponents' views, not supporters, like me, as I favor proposal based on familiarity, merit, and significance) Nothing useful, as the closer was accurate on this. User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Talk:All That Jazz#Move? and User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Talk:Lovin' You (Minnie Riperton song)#Requested move I don't get this. I wonder who is wrong: me, the administrators, or the rules? Do we have to rely on judgments of administrators who may or may not interpret discussions correctly? I've been think about reporting on JHunterJ, but I don't know.... Lately, he sees me as a crusader of "renaming", but, in spite of flimsy reasonings in the past, I've tried to point out how each title may or may not have merits. --George Ho (talk) 15:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC) There are differing views in this area. You will have to learn to live with that. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC) There are concerns about closure judgments by JHunter, but my proposals are not the only ones. --George Ho (talk) 21:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC) I could be wrong, George (like I said, I'm not very experienced in this area), but I think Elen is saying that some people will just disagree about the issue. On Wikipedia, people use hyperbole and over-the-top rhetoric when it isn't warranted, so someone may call you "disruptive" for bringing up the issue when you aren't being disruptive, but just expressing a different opinion. In this case, even though you were accused of that, you probably weren't doing anything wrong. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC) The problem, George Ho, is not that "each title may or may not have merits". It's that we have guidelines and policies for evaluating those merits, and rather that two appropriate courses of action (either apply the existing guidelines and policies, or raise your objections and suggestions for improving them on their talk pages) you instead make move requests without regard to those guidelines and policies and, in particular, immediately re-request several moves that did not answer your questions to your satisfaction. The WP:RM process is not there to cycle over and over again until you've accepted the results. And if you have a question about what the right title might be for an article, rather than proposing a move with several options and abstaining (sometimes even explicitly) from supporting any of them, first open a "regular" (non-RM) section on the talk page to ask for other watchers' opinions. -- JHunterJ (talk ) 15:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC) What's the use of making a regular discussions, anyway? I have begun to trust my instincts and words more than I trust people because I have wise brain, all right? And why do I have to trust anybody, especially you? Imagine you as my mentor... I would decline your offers as temporary mentor over and over. --George Ho (talk) 15:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC) In fact, I went to User talk:Anthony Appleyard first because... that's all I can do; I trust him. I'm not wise enough to know how to discuss anything other than proposals. I depend on templates because that's all I can do. --George Ho (talk) 16:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC) If you are not interested in my input, it might reflect your wisdom to avoid statements like "I've been think about reporting on JHunterJ", which tend to gain my attention. I would still recommend you not start relying solely on your instincts on WP just yet. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC) What do you mean? --George Ho (talk) 21:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC) What I said. Which part needs rephrasing? -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC) To what type of "statements" were you referring? Well, since I figure out that I must see good from everyone first, I'm doing my best to see good in you, but how would it benefit with people questioning your closures and judgments? I'm not saying that you are wrong or unwise or unilateral. I'm just... having doubts contacting you first, but I'm still looking a good in you. --George Ho (talk) 02:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC) The type of statement like the one I quoted: "I've been think about reporting on JHunterJ," --George Ho 15:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC) -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC) What do you think the type is for that quote: misjudging, prejudicial, bitter, making people look bad, or what else? Also, what's your "input"? --George Ho (talk) 12:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

(Archived) Where did I go wrong?

Archived. Nothing to discuss further.

Now I have become without frequent mentor and become vulnerable to risk being blocked again. First, the fiasco with EastEnders dedicators. Then the "Blackmark" heat, even with unpleasantness that should have gone to WP:WQA first. Now the Titanic Musician merge without discussion? What have I done wrong? How and why did I end up in messes like these? Apologies won't help rebuild my own reputation. It's too late to rebuild relationships with others whom I've hurt previously before block, unless I swallow my pride and then take a downfall and become a loser. Great! If I behave this way, I would be seen as an emotional drama queen. I'm accused of not understanding the rules, but mentors say that I haven't done anything drastically wrong yet after block. --George Ho (talk ) 09:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC) You need to be a little calm. Discussions held only in typed messages often lack nuance of intent. Also, you can be slightly hard to understand. Remember when I first met you, I thought you spoke a foreign language? Well, I think part of it is that people who don't know you find you slightly hard to follow. But don't take things personally. People don't know you - you're just some typed words on a screen that they are reacting to. You haven't hurt anybody (moving an article or nominating something for deletion isn't the same as hurting them, and some people need to get over this). Equally, they haven't really hurt you in the real world. Now Tenebrae was well out of order, and I have said that to him, but there's probably nothing to be gained by taking that any further. Tomorrow, as they say, is another day. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

(Resolved) How do I make friends in Wikipedia? Was I self-pitying myself all the time?

Resolved - Excessive self-pity is a turn-off, and so is avoiding self-pity. Let go the past mistakes, and make Wikipedia the better place than it is.

So far, I have to start seeking good in people. Wallowing into self-pity won't help me win friends; I wonder if doing so helps me lose people. Was I self-pitying myself? Does pitying myself for pitying myself all the time help me progress here and outside elsewhere? Does feeling bad about myself help me win or lose friends? Do I have to be common with other people to make friends? Do I have to shun out people whom I barely get along or I have no common with? --George Ho (talk) 11:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC) Yes, feeling bad for yourself will cause you to lose friends; it's unfortunate but it's true. I am not claiming that you can't have feelings, but I am claiming that if you engage in it excessively, people will respond negatively to it. And yes you were pitying yourself a bit too much; that's why, on my talk page, I suggested just letting the matter go. But it's nothing to beat yourself up about; in fact, thinking about not pitying yourself is a turn-off too, so if you've made a mistake in the past it's best to just let it go. All of this is a very unfortunate side-effect of the fact that humans are selfish, so we only appreciate other people as friends if they contribute something to us - and self-pity doesn't contribute anything to us. Anyway, I have a very black-and-white view of the world, so other people might think my interpretation of human interaction is rigid (and it might be) - so take anything I say with a grain of salt. One other thing to note: on Wikipedia, we communicate with each other, but the primary goal is to better the content of the encyclopedia, so we don't really develop "friends" like one does in the real world (or maybe even other online settings). Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Redirects 101

The mediawiki software will only do one pass through a redirect. This feature stops vandals setting up an endless loop (some wag in my office once redirected all the phones in a loop, then rang in on his mobile and watched all the phones ring in sequence). But it means that when you move an article, you need to check Special:what links here very carefully, and when you retarget a redirect, you need to be sure what you are pointing it at.

You can see at Revision history of Jack Geller that you changed the redirect for

You moved

When you move an article, you also always need to check to see if you have accidentally created double redirects. This can happen where you have an article (say Ford Capri), but on the island of Capri, Ford marketed the car as the Ford Goat, so Ford Goat redirects to Ford Capri. Now if you come along and move the article to Capri (Ford automobile), leaving Ford Capri as a redirect, then Ford Goat, which still redirects to Ford Capri is now a double redirect.

If you want to check if an article has a double redirect pointing at it, go to the article and click "What links here" (usually the first link in the "Toolbox" on the lefthand side of the page). Double (or multiple) redirects are those pages which appear in the list with both of these properties: Indented at least one level in comparison to the page at the top of the list, AND Labelled "(redirect page)".

When you move an article, it usually pops up "What links here" for you, so you can check it out.

Is this OK. It can get a bit confusing. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I did move Adventures in Paradise to Adventures in Paradise (TV series), changed links, and then created dab page. Would this hurt? --George Ho (talk) 02:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

All looks OK as far as I can see Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I wonder who's right, RegentsPark or I, about the "original research" stuff? See

I'd say that the best is to be silent about that. Don't just put forward other users into trouble. Also, I don't think that ANI report by you was appropriate, you should generally contact Tenebrae first. Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)} 15:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

That won't benefit anything. Even when Elen scolded Tenebrae for comments, Tenebrae removed them from his user page. --George Ho (talk) 15:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Is this a very hard process? After the block and EastEnders fiasco, I thought I could reform myself and make friends. I wonder how I must go positive rather than negaitive. I was too negative on myself and other people and other things and too literal on guidelines and policies. ...Letting myself down won't help; after all the time, I realize that I have let myself down too much. If I let myself down because of negative crap that has gotten me into being too much of an influence (negative or positive) and/or a pariah, then what's the use of feeling negative, being let down, letting myself down, and letting other things and people get to me? I have to go positive about Wikipedia, but how? --George Ho (talk) 16:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Some more: Sometimes, I felt I'm totally responsible for causing ruckus in Wikipedia; ruckus in Wikipedia is my fault and responsibility, as I am thinking. I wonder if there is a point to play a blame game with anybody. I realize that I have been negative by feeling responsible for events that I was involved in. Feeling positive about it throws people off, unless events are good, so I chose to feel negative about anything. --George Ho (talk) 16:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I never fully grasp the "discussion first" advice. For example, I have boldly turned

Maybe I am starting to understand "discussion first" concept: see good in everybody first, like a yin and yang. --George Ho (talk) 22:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

You're beginning to get it. First talk to the person - on the article talkpage or their talkpage. Only move to the next stage when that has got you nowhere. It is possible that the other chap is more concerned with the removal of info - or more concerned that the table structure makes it harder to edit. Talk to him/her. See what you can agree. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Y Resolved. Go on doing your own work.

I have let myself down whenever people condemn me for doing things "disruptive". I'm beginning to realize that making friends is less possible if things do not go as I planned. Is making friends not one of the top 10 primary goals? Is it otherwise? Well, people advise me to let these comments go, but I fear there may be more whenever I do more. Telling me not to do more.... That doesn't gain me friends as much as it gains me enemies or a pariah status. But.... I don't know. Must this teach me a lesson about messing with people's work? --George Ho (talk) 02:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC) The best way to resolve this is to just go on doing your own work. Having said that; people will notice your work and then they will slowly like you. Participate in some WikiProjects and do the work collaboratively, that lets you gain a lot of friends. Look at my Wiki-Friends. I consider giving everyone a Kitten or some Cheese Burger for all their work, but this is not possible, so whenever I see some guy doing some gnome work I award them. Thus it increases your reputation and finally others will become friends. I hope you got the point. Dipankan (Have a chat?) 08:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC) I have done Commons work in Wikimedia Commons. I have recently joined WP:WikiProject Disambiguation. ...Nothing much left yet. Also, I'm working on Cheers thing. --George Ho (talk) 08:24, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Resolved. Do not send notifications to WikiProjects.

I think that this can be archived now. Dipankan (Have a chat?) 08:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC) If posting 14 or 15 neutral messages about Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Copyright is canvassing, how can I reduce risks of canvassing? --George Ho (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC) Let me suggest something. Stop sending notifications that participate in the WikiProject. When it comes to people, they will some day see and support this project. Otherwise all your tries fall into canvassing. Dipankan (Have a chat? ) 10:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I want to set up a deletion review on one of my deletion discussions because, over time, I realize that in-and-out-of-universe notability may help female characters benefit notabilities well. However, I wonder if it is awkward to set up review on my own nomination. --George Ho (talk) 23:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Technically nothing prevents you from requesting a review of a deletion discussion you started yourself. But I wonder whether that's necessary at all. For all I can tell, the articles weren't deleted but turned into redirects, and rightly so because the articles did not demonstrate the characters' notability. If you think you can rewrite them and provide sources to establish that notability, you can go ahead and do so without having to formally overturn the AfD decision. The closing admin even said that the merges could be canceled if significant coverage in 3rd party sources is found. Huon (talk) 16:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I undid the merges of

Myrtle Fargate. Nevertheless, I added {{afd-merge to}} to help readers notify the consensus. To everyone, they are the most important of the show and appeared for many years. Experts at Soap Opera Project can agree that in-universe notability can make a character notable, yet real-world coverage is harder to find because 1970s and 1980s sources are obscure to find. --George Ho (talk

) 17:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

If curious,

Tara Martin had copyvio revs, so I couldn't undo the merger. --George Ho (talk

) 17:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not an expert on notability of fictional characters, but I don't think importance within a work of fiction alone is enough, and we need secondary sources discussing the character. That seems to agree with the WikiProject's standards.

I don't think the current articles demonstrate that notability, with the possible exception of

Phoebe Tyler Wallingford, which has multiple sources among the "further reading" section that might be useful, plus a reference to real-world coverage. The others are mostly either unreferenced or have only references to a primary source - the show itself. Do you intend to add secondary sources to those articles, or don't you know of any? As you said, it will be difficult to find them unless you already know where to look - I certainly wouldn't be successful in digging them up. If you don't know of secondary sources either, I believe we would be better off with the redirects than with unsourced articles. Huon (talk

) 18:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

For Mona Kane: People.com, Soap Opera Digest at eBay.com (original), Sun Sentinel) (original), Amazon.com product of People's tribute to All My Children of 41 years. --George Ho (talk) 18:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Great! I don't think eBay or Amazon come with the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" necessary to be considered

reliable, but if we could dig up the magazines themselves, they might serve, depending on what they say about Mona Kane. The newspapers look good, though People.com is more about the actor than the character. Huon (talk

) 19:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

But Amazon or eBay may have people's opinions of Mona, which could make Mona more notable. But I'll add newspapers as further sources rather than use them. Meanwhile: Google.com results. Also, Frances said that there won't be another Mona because "Frances is Mona", according to People mag. --George Ho (talk) 19:06, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

NYDailyNews.com about Mary Fickett and her performance of Vietnam War protest that won her award. --George Ho (talk) 19:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, we can merge Ruth and Joe Martin; they are notable together, just as Superman's parents are notable together.... What do you think? After all, a couple is more notable than individual characters themselves. --George Ho (talk) 19:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm a little skeptical. The Joe Martin article doesn't really have any reliable sources of its own. The NY Daily News article, while certainly a reliable source, only gives us a single sentence about the character; the rest is about the actress. For comparison I'd point to J. R. Ewing. That article cites the New York Times, the LA Times and the Daily Telegraph, and those newspapers seem to dedicate entire articles (or at least significant parts of articles) to the character, not the actor. Now Ewing is probably much more famous than the All My Children characters, but in principle, that's the kind of sources we should try to find.

Well, notability of fiction was attempted (

WP:FICT), but attempts failed because readers want to read more about fiction than real-world coverage and because any character can be notable by many sources and stuff and because in-universe notability may count as well as out-of-universe notability. Talk pages prove that, and I have come up an idea of television notability in WP:Village pump (idea lab). --George Ho (talk

) 20:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

That's news to me. If a special guideline on notability for fictional characters failed, I'd expect the

King-Emperor Huon, is so utterly non-notable that we only have a redirect - although he's one of the main antagonists in several books, we simply cannot write an article on him that isn't based on primary sources. Huon (talk

) 20:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

That depends.... Still, under WP:notability, a stand-alone article is not guaranteed, even when a topic is notable. --George Ho (talk) 21:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, talking to

WP:SOAPS participants is very hard because they're still angry at me for harming the project and making mass AFD noms and ideas that produced negative reaction. I'm just trying to appease soap fans, so they don't get angry at me and don't think of me negatively anymore. --George Ho (talk

) 20:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

According to St. Petersburg Times, Ruth Martin, Joe Martin, Phoebe Tyler, and Mona Kane were original characters. --George Ho (talk) 20:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Just thought I'd throw a few cents into the ring, but

this may be of help. Blackmane (talk

) 00:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I've already linked to that. It is just intended for Huon. We know that every article of individual character or couple must have in- and out-of-universe notability, which is a how-to requirement for every article and which counts as notability per talk discussions. --George Ho (talk) 01:06, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

For further info, see talk:Woody Interruptus and Village pump (idea lab). --George Ho (talk) 01:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh I see you have indeed linked to it, must have missed it. Huon is correct in that

WP:GNG is the default fall back. I'm afraid you're going to have to come up with a fairly convincing argument for the DRV to be run. I'm guessing by "in universe notability" that you mean that they're recurring characters that are central, or at least not merely peripheral, to the plot. Blackmane (talk

) 18:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

"In-universe notability" is verified by secondary-sources, as well. Mona's and Frances's deaths were central to All My Children; even her funeral was central due to clash between the whole town, including Erica, and Kendall. --George Ho (talk) 18:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the secondary sources reporting on that. The death of the actor, yes, but the death of the character? The clash over the funeral? SoapCentral mentions the character's death, but I'm don't know whether that's considered a reliable source - is there some sort of editorial oversight? Are they known for fact-checking? Do other publications use SoapCentral as a source? Huon (talk) 19:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, the primary source is implicitly referenced. According to

WT:SOAPS. Even YouTube clips of All My Children can verify them. --George Ho (talk

) 19:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Now I'm confused. Is the in-universe notability verified by secondary sources, or not? If so, which are those sources? While I agree that primary sources can be used to establish a character's fictional background, they cannot bestow notability, they cannot be used for interpretation (and "X is an important character" is inherently interpretation), and content should not be based on primary sources alone. Huon (talk) 21:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

What is in-universe notability to you? To me, in-universe notability is a notability that one fictional character is known by many characters within fiction for things in fiction. For example, Mona Kane murdered one of Erica Kane's boyfriends, stopped Erica and her half-brother, Mark Dalton from doing it, stole and married Phoebe's ex-husband, Charles Tyler, and is a mother of well-known socialite, Erica Kane. Even primary sources can be also secondary sources because writers built up interaction among characters of Pine Valley, unless I'm wrong. --George Ho (talk) 21:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Even recaps done by newspapers and magazines can verify that stories were truly written. --George Ho (talk) 21:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if we must discuss in-universe notability in

WT:SOAPS; they hate me. Anyway, here's Fictional universe article; hope it helps. --George Ho (talk

) 22:06, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Huon advised me that the AFD decision can be overturned without the need of DRV if only the debate is not delete. In other words, I quit my plans to start a DRV. --George Ho (talk) 18:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I have proposed merger for the second time, and I cannot hold on any longer if this proposal fails. I want to propose a deletion, but I need a mentor approval first. --George Ho (talk) 03:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

A few comments: First of all, I'm not formally a mentor, and I'm somewhat of a deletionist myself, so you should take my opinion with a grain of salt. That said, I agree with your merger proposal and have commented to that effect on the talk page. However, if the second merger proposal fails, a nomination for deletion would probably be seen as disruptive

forum shopping

- the best possible result of a deletion discussion (in my opinion) would be "merge and redirect", which is precisely what we're arguing for right now. My advice would be to instead begrudgingly accept that consensus favors the existence of that independent article and to move on to other articles.

As an aside, I don't think your reasoning about the redundancy will carry the day - if there were more independent reviews of the episode, establishing individual notability, the way to go would probably be to shorten the coverage in the list and have the list point to the individual episode article for details. Huon (talk) 10:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

This template must be deleted because no articles use it right now. Also, there is no point about making any more "X on Twitter" articles. --George Ho (talk) 18:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Nominated for discussion here:

stoned

16:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)