User talk:Myleslong/Archive 3

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 .

You must be psychic because I had been pondering the same thing myself! I just didn't know if anyone else was interested. I was going to stroll around some of the other horror film websites and see who was doing most of the editing and post something on their talk page, but just never got around to it. Besides yourself, these are some of the other more helpful editors I encountered during the peer review/FA nominations process of the Halloween article:

Let me know what you plan to do, if anything. I'll help where I can. Dmoon1 21:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good start. Do you know how to create the appropriate templates and other stuff? I've never been involved in starting a project from scratch, but as I said, I'll help where I can. Dmoon1 18:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so making templates isn't as hard as I thought. I copy and pasted the Star Wars Wikiproject templates and just changed the images and text. The only good images of horror-related items on the Commons website were from the film Nosferatu, so I used those. Look at these and let me know what you think: User:Dmoon1/WikiProject Horror Template. Dmoon1 19:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Films and novels (maybe literature would be better to incorporate comics and classic works) are fine with me. Including novels might attract more people. Whatever you think'll work best is fine with me. I couldn't find a good horror pic from lit. on Commons, so I deleted the film reel. I think it looks less crowded with just the one image. Dmoon1 19:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think comics, novels and music that tie directly to specific horror films or characters, should be counted. Music is a bit tougher to draw the line. I'd say that if a band did an album dedicated to one of these characters or films, include them. I would not automatically include bands that are classified as Horror punk or Horrorcore rap, though. JohnBWatt 20:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks pretty good! There are other horror-related topics: music (e.g.

Шизомби 19:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I tried to organize the templates section on the Horror project main page, but had a little trouble. Can you look at this and see if you can figure out what went wrong? [1] Thanks. Dmoon1 02:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the table you were using was that, on the last line, you had "|-}", and you should have had "|}". I fixed it. This was a really good idea, thanks for adding that to the project page. --Myles Long 16:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I plagiarized the idea from the Star Wars Wikiproject. Thanks for cleaning that up. Dmoon1 17:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have an "unofficial" Star Wars barnstar at the Star Wars Wikiproject, so I thought I'd come up with an "unofficial" Horror barnstar. What do you think?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmoon1 (talk • contribs)

That's really cool! Let's use it. --Myles Long 22:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it's up and running.

Hi I'm an occasional wiki user who writes for a music website called Rockdetector. I was wondering if you feel the horror novels of the British writer James Herbert warrant articles, and whether you could somehow place this as a project on the horror community portal. Just a request anyway. If time doesn't permit, then that's ok. Take care. LuciferMorgan 22:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC) PS - Sorry I forgot to leave my Wiki name.[reply]

I'm not familiar with those novels, but the little I've found by googling makes them sound interesting. You should bring this up on the WikiProject Horror talk page to get a consensus of editors. --Myles Long 23:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok, well I've read some of them - he's a pretty established horror author in the UK, regularly gets to no. 1. LuciferMorgan 23:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I'm just wondering when the horror collaboration will be up and running LuciferMorgan 00:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I agree it'd be good to get the ball rolling, and I'd like to contribute to the collaboration, only I've never significantly added to a film page before. Maybe I should ask DMoon1 for advice.LuciferMorgan 14:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the sequel to Candyman there is no page. Typing in the name just redirects you to the article on the first one. Could you delete the redirect so a stub article for the sequel could be made? Many thanks LuciferMorgan 14:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will do that, sure, no problem. What you can do, though, is edit the redirect page. This can be done by following the link under the title of the page ("Candyman (film)", in this case); underneath it, it should say "(Redirected from <pagename>)" (in this case, <pagename> = "Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh"). That title ("Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh") is a clickable link; when you follow it, it will take you to the redirect page but it won't redirect you, so you can edit it from there. I hope that makes sense. Regardless, I'll delete the redirect for you. --Myles Long 15:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No I wouldn't mind -- I've just been busy with other things. Dmoon1 18:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't help but notice on your userpage templates for Clive Barker, Child's Play and so on to place on pages related to those subjects. I've never known how to create them, so could you help? LuciferMorgan 02:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer is to go to "Template:<template_name>" (replacing <template_name> with whatever you want to name the template. It will probably tell you that the template doesn't exist, so you should then click "create an article with this name" or whatever it says.

As for what to put in the template, at first, you should probably look at an existing template to see how it is structured and copy/paste its text/formatting into your new template, then change it to suit your needs (feel free to use any of the templates that I - or anyone else, really - have created as a basis).

To put templates into an article, do this {{<template_name>}}.

For more information, go

here or here. There's a section for requested templates

, too, if you would rather have someone create your template(s) for you.

I hope this helps. Let me know if you need any more help. --Myles Long 15:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help with the templates. It worked. One thing really annoying me about horror's wikipedia coverage at the moment is all these trivia sections which inevitably scar the articles, but I know for a fact if I delete them, the edits would be reverted. Wish people would stop adding them, they're so tacky lol. LuciferMorgan 20:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem on the template help. As for the trivia boxes, I completely agree. If the information is good, it should be worked into the article somehow. If not, it should be deleted. Unfortunately, you're right that removal of "trivia" boxes will often be reverted quickly. --Myles Long 20:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah my only solution for the trivia boxes is to work each piece of trivia at a time into an article. A long and laborious process that'll probably never end, because the trivia boxes will keep popping up. I've been mostly adding move posters and infoboxes to horror films lacking them. I wanted to add an infoboxes and movie posters to the Crow films, but somebody has made a template which is difficult to get around. Where most templates have more width than length, this is the other way around which is a pain. Take a look if you wish. Just me rambling on really. LuciferMorgan 20:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi mate. Need your help. As I'm an AOL user I've been blocked from using this IP so I can't edit on certain pages (like the Tobe Hooper one). I tried leaving a message on the admin's page but that one share's the same IP. The admin was called Shanel, who was stopping wolf guevara (allegedly a sock puppet). Could you ask him/her to tell me when the block will be lifted LuciferMorgan 05:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like that IP is not currently blocked. However, it does seem to get blocked regularly for periods ranging from 15 minutes to 48 hours. Apparently, there is a repeated vandal associated with it. Hmm. I'll look into it some more and let you know if I find anything. --Myles Long 16:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

about the b.o \ myspace bluedude1234

I'm not disputing that he's someone worth noting on Wikipedia, but is there enough notable info to make a full-fledged article solely about him? --Vedek Dukat ^Talk 07:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's a notable guy in a notable group who's written notable software; that alone should warrant him a "full-fledged" article. It seems pretty obvious to me. Still, the article needs work, but that's no reason to turn it into a redirect. I'll look into beefing it up in the near future. --Myles Long 15:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But is he noteworthy for anything other than being the author of the programs, or is there a story behind how he developed them, etc? If he's only known for the fact that he wrote those programs then a mention in the relevant articles that a member going by the alias of "Sir Dystic" authored them. --Vedek Dukat ^Talk 18:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is really a discussion that should be on the talk page for that article, as there are possible people who would be interested in it that aren't watching our talk pages. In fact, I'm going to move this discussion there, please reply there. Yes, there's more to his story than "he wrote some programs." Google his name, there are plenty of interviews and such with him that describe, among other things, the story behind how and why he developed them. I wonder at the motive of your singling out this article for notability, when there are many other articles on hackers, programmers, writers, musicians, etc. that are less notable than him (arguably) that have less information than presented here. --Myles Long 19:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Myleslong. I thought I'd let you know that I added the message below to all the WikiProject Horror participants who haven't yet voted for the collaboration. Seemed a good way to break the tie we currently have between Carpenter and Argento, while at then same time alerting people to the collaboration's existence if they were unaware:

Hi! I noticed your name on the

Collaboration of the month. Today is the designated selection day to choose the collaboration, but we currently have a tie between the two articles receiving the most votes, John Carpenter and Dario Argento. I am hoping to remedy this by drumming up a few more votes. Note that by voting for any nominated article (not limited to these two) you are indicating your "commitment to support and aid in collaborating on that specific article if it is chosen," so please feel absolutely free to ignore this message if for any reason you don't wish or would not be able to participate.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Looks like we have a winner and I'll use the template just because:

You showed support for the status . We hope you can contribute.

--

Hello! I noticed that you have interacted with

I really like the infoboxes you made for ACiD Productions and iCE Advertisements. However, the original logos were thumbnails, and I don't see an option in the computer underground infobox template to use a thumbnail or scale an image (my wiki skills are also very limited). As such, the logos are now in their glorious 1024x768 or so and so are the infoboxes because of it. Could you please advise me on my talk page how I should go about getting these infoboxes back down to a decent size/width? I've tried to figure it out on my own but no luck getting it to work so far. Thank you.

--sodium

There was an error in the infobox template, I fixed it. The images should show up correctly now. Glad you like the infobox. --Myles Long 16:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really getting alot of use out of it.. check it out: Category:Artscene groups. --Sodium N4 12:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhhh.--Crestville 19:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aww, did you miss me? That's so cute. --Myles Long 22:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just happened upon our debate. That were a good thing we had going there. Actually planned to apologise for my part in it. Reckon it's worth it Bo?--Crestville 00:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've been working on the Night of the Living Dead article for some time now. Would you mind looking over it whenever you get the chance? Thanks. Dmoon1 04:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. I've made some minor copy edits. There are a few red links; not sure what to do about them. --Myles Long 16:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed most of the red links and sent it to peer review; thanks for looking at it. I have a question, however, about a template someone has added to the page.

Template:George A. Romero Films recently appeared at the bottom of the article, but there is already a category called Category:Films directed by George A. Romero. Is it really necessary to have both a template and a category of the same information? Dmoon1 05:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Again, good work on that article. I'm not sure what the policy is regarding templates vs. categories, but I don't see any reason there shouldn't be both. A template often eliminates the "need" for a "see also" list. Unlike a category, it doesn't require any extra clicks to get to the links to related articles if a template is present. That's not to say that templates are always appropriate. So, to answer your question, it's not really necessary, but (I think) it doesn't violate policy and helps with navigation. That's just my $0.02, though. I'll look around and see if I can find any precendents. --Myles Long 21:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, that's all I was curious about. Thanks. Dmoon1 16:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yo, why did you revert the edit about the Yin being the drummer on the last tour?

i added that info months ago, and noticed that it needed the citation, so i went and found it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.193.125.119 (talk • contribs)

Sorry about that. --Myles Long 19:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current Texan Collaboration of the Year is Lizzie Velásquez . Every year, a different Texas-related topic, stub or non-existent article is picked. Please read the nomination text and improve the article any way you can.

Hi, is there anything to succeed John Carpenter as collaboration of the month at the moment? Just wondering. LuciferMorgan 21:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this was a really impressive little article! Well done :-) Have you thought about making it a "showcase article" for the Schools WikiProject? It looks like it ought to be. It's become an article I point people to if they want to see how to write a nice little article without stressing about all the niceties of FAC. (You might want to consider FACing this at some point though, there seem to be enough sources to make it possible!)

There are a couple of quibbles I had with it, but the structure and referening impressed me immensely, as did good editorial judgement about what belongs in and what belongs out of a schools article. I left some feedback about how it could be improved in the talk page; the thing that worried me was the level of detail about the academic decathlon (it includes personal names, which is a tricky editorial decision, and it is largely unreferenced, which makes the decision to include personal names look a little shakier) but other than that I was seriously impressed.

Kudos, TheGrappler 14:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nineteen Eighty-Four (TV programme) is an article I was just browsing which shockingly has FA status without citing any sources whatsoever. I just put a citation tag up, but it got removed. It's plainly obvious this article wouldn't reach FA now, nor this other related article which has the same group of psycho wikipedians hounding its pages like a pack of wolves. Since you're a administrator, what do you think I should do? I'm scared if I make more requests, they're gonna shoot them down or I'll end up arguing with them and getting blocked. I'f put it up for an FA review, but I think they'd end up all trying to refute my claims. LuciferMorgan 23:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at it and put the "unreferenced" tag back. As for FA review, I say go for it. There are enough sensible people around, I think, to notice that a (largely) unsourced article is currently an FA. --Myles Long 23:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind reply. There are other FA articles with the same bunch of editors, like the Quatermass articles. They're decently written (bit small for FA status I think, long enough for Good Article status possibly), but there are no citations whatsoever. They reached FA status around 2 years ago, but it's an open debate if they'd make the criteria this time around. LuciferMorgan 00:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi mate... I have a wiki question you might be able to answer. If someone puts an FA up for review but nobody ends up even leaving any comments whatsoever after the usual 2 week period, what happens then? LuciferMorgan 00:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had an editorial dispute with a user called ....<, but I'm not responding to him anymore as it seems to escalate into heated arguments. If he keeps messaging, would it be ok if I got back in touch with you and you had a word with him? LuciferMorgan 23:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, let me know what the story is and I'll do my best. --Myles Long 23:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry dude. He's the one that started the damn thing, insulting us and all that. It's really nothing, just that he doesn't understand the concept of an FA. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 22:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This guy who messaged you above is still messaging me (check my userpage), and frankly I don't wish to speak to him and haven't messaged him recently to prompt any messages. We have a difference in opinion concerning FA, and I just want to leave it at that. Tell him to leave me alone. LuciferMorgan 22:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you reverted some edits I did to various articles where I removed links to rotten.com articles. I removed these links because, in general, rotten.com's articles are not appropriate either as references or even as external links. See Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided, points 1 and 2. Rotten.com's Library pages are unsourced, written by an unknown person, there is no reason to believe they have been fact checked, and many of them, including many of the ones I removed links to, contain no information which our own articles should or do have. The link in Teabagging leads to a page with almost no information that our own superior article doesn't already have. The Cult_of_the_Dead_Cow article similiarly links to a rotten.com article which contains far less information than our own. The link in Miss_Macao is being used as a source for the article, but the rotten.com article linked to has only one brief paragraph on this which is entirely unsourced, probably taken from some other website and possibly even from wikipedia itself. Rotten.com's Library section basically consists of low quality encylopedia articles, low quality not in writing but in the fact that they're all unsourced. As our External links sections are not a place to stick links to every on-topic web page in existence, I can't see why these belong, especially in the case of rotten.com library pages which are less informative than our own articles. --Xyzzyplugh 20:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. First and foremost, looking at

WP:IAR

. These points aside, you do make some interesting points. Your logic falls apart here, though: "written by an unknown person." Sound like Wikipedia to you? It does to me. For instance, I doubt if your real namy is Xyzzyplugh. There's nothing wrong with having a username that allows some anonymity, but it's a bit of a double standard to fault another site for having unsigned articles when this site, essentially, has the same thing. Wikipedia allows IP edits and allows users who do register to not disclose their real names. That's a step above 100% anonymity, I suppose, since the articles are "signed," but it's not that much different. It's not like everyone here is a scholar or some sort of authority and everyone who writes for the Rotten Library is a know-nothing simpleton; in fact, I wouldn't be too surprised if there's some crossover of writers between the two sites. The point is that it's impossible to determine who really wrote the articles on either site, except for those few Wikipedians who do disclose their real names and credentials.

Also, you point out that "Rotten.com's Library section basically consists of low quality encylopedia articles, low quality not in writing but in the fact that they're all unsourced." Personally, I find the Rotten Library to be a highly amusing and entertaining collection of articles; I've learned a lot from browsing it. Sure, some are of better quality than others, but that's definitely not something Wikipedians should use to fault another site. Thus, my interpretation of their quality is different from yours: I think they tend to be very high quality articles.

"As our External links sections are not a place to stick links to every on-topic web page in existence, I can't see why these belong, especially in the case of rotten.com library pages which are less informative than our own articles." That's true, our EL sections are not a place for "links to every on-topic web page in existence;" that would be ridiculous. However, claiming that the Rotten Library is "less informative than our own articles," though, is also up for debate. As I mentioned, I've learned a great deal from browsing the Rotten Library; it has articles relating to several topics on which Wikipedia's articles are sadly lacking in content. It seems that your biggest problem with the Rotten Library is that it is not Wikipedia. Actually, more specifically, that it is not run in the same fashion as Wikipedia. Who are we to say how another site should run its encyclopedia?

Your main issue with the Rotten Library seems to be its lack of sources. I won't argue this with you; many of its articles are definitely unsourced. However, if you're so concerned with article sources, I can point out hundreds of unsourced articles right here that you can work on.

Thanks again for the comments. --Myles Long 16:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]