Talk:Kristian Ayre

Programme/Program
While I appreciate the intention in changing "programme" to "program" for an American article, surely quotations should not have been changed...? ntnon (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, quotations must remain as they appeared in the source. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 04:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Section on article deletion
There should not be a section in this article about the previous deletion of this article. It is highly unencyclopedic navelgazing; no encyclopedia would take 'time out' from talking about France to tell the reader how interesting it was to research France. It is, in a word, unencyclopedic. I am removing the entire section. Please read the talk page and respond before blindly reverting this change; it is a good faith effort to improve this article. 70.100.94.43 (talk) 06:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Since it's sourced, it seems appropriate for inclusion. Some articles have such sections when it's relevant and sourced, like the John Seigenthaler article. Nightscream (talk) 08:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes - I saw that it had a source tagged to the end of it. I did think for a minute that maybe it should be kept, when I saw that.  However, sourcing unencyclopedic material - such as a discussion about a deletion debate - does not make it encyclopedic or appropriate for inclusion... my feeling is that it just doesn't fit.  I feel that very strongly.  It's cool that Peter David got involved, though... 70.100.94.43 (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, two people believe it should stay. Do you want to request Third Opinion, or have a consensus discussion? Nightscream (talk) 17:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't mind having a discussion about it, honestly, if you can find someone else to weigh in. Presumably the "second" person who believes it should stay is the person who added it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.100.94.43 (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

In the first place, it doesn't matter who the editors are who voice their opinions. In the second place, your presumption is wrong, since the second person is me, and I didn't add it. User:Ntnon did. You'd know this if you simply checked the article's edit history. Nightscream (talk) 23:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey, buddy; A a little GF please. Not a huge fan of yer tone, killer. I actually said that the second person who believes it should stay is the person who added it. So you're asserting that that is actually the first person and you are the second. That's fine. It's obvious you're one of them because you're arguing for its inclusion, that's why I said the person who added it was the "second." Do you see? Now, back on track. All I said was, let's find someone else. I'd find someone else, but I don't know anyone else. Ideally, people at random would read the talk page and say "Hey, I think that should be included," or "Hey, I'm glad that's gone," which is kinda what I was hoping for; just some more input from some others. Maybe this isn't an issue that annoys many people the way it annoys me. 70.100.94.43 (talk) 00:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hm, I could've A'd some of that GF myself there. Sorry. But seriously, where's the discussion? You'd think some others would care. 70.100.94.43 (talk) 00:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * 3rd Opinion My opinion was solicited, for what it's worth, here it is: the biography page is for talking about things relevant to the life and career of of the subject. Although the section was well sourced, there's no sign that it had much effect on her life, if any, which is quite different from John Seigenthaler, who personally complained about his biography. A trimmed down version of the section could easily go into Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia, however, which has lots of space for such things. Ray  Talk 00:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, I don't think that, these days, the fact of a Wikipedia internal action being mentioned in a single column (this time in Comics Buyers Guide) is sufficient to make the Wiki-stuff notable; if it got picked up by the mass media and covered extensively, yes, but not just one article in one specialized publication. Five years ago things might have been different, where the mere fact that Wikipedia was mentioned at all in some non-computer-geek publication would be seen as lending some notability to whatever aspect of it that got mentioned, but these days the bar is much higher. *Dan T.* (talk) 00:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You might want to read the article a bit more carefully, Ray. Kristian Ayre is a man. Nightscream (talk) 02:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Honestly, the only section I read was the removed Wikipedia section :) Ray  Talk 03:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * 4th opinion. Nightscream has asked me to weigh in on this discussion. Having looked at the deleted section, I feel that it should be omitted from the article for now. The incident appears to be fairly marginal to the content of the article. It has only been mentioned in one source, which I would not regard as mainstream (unlike, say, a newspaper or well-known website). I agree with Ray and Dan T's takes on the matter. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 04:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * OK. I dunno if just a few people is consensus to keep the section out of this main article, but I do know that I like Ray's idea, since the article he suggests is related to this whole issue very well.  I even think there's a specific section it would go well in: "Subjects of deleted articles." At any rate, that's what I think. 74.46.8.247 (talk) 04:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is relevant to this article, as there doesn't appear to be any coverage of this from other sources, and there is no evidence that the subject of the article is involved or has commented on it. The one place it may be suitable for, at present, is in the Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia article. snigbrook (talk) 23:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It should be in the Peter David article since it involves him.  D r e a m Focus  03:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I just added it there, with the summary edit mentioning the original writer. Since it doesn't concern the actor, but does concern the writer, it should be on the writer's page.   D r e a m Focus  03:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Kristian Ayre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071217030403/http://web.mac.com:80/kristianayre/iWeb/Kristian%20Ayre/Resume.html to http://web.mac.com/kristianayre/iWeb/Kristian%20Ayre/Resume.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100428011122/http://www.movent.ca:80/dfasshalloffame/dfasshalloffame.htm to http://www.movent.ca/dfasshalloffame/dfasshalloffame.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)