User:LuciferMorgan/Archive 1

AHC
Do you have a knowledge of the history of American Head Charge? I'm a fan of the music, but I don't know anything about them. If you do, could you possibly enhance the article about the band... especially the history... to something more than it is? If you can, thanks for the help. DMighton 18:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Awesome.... keep up the good work. DMighton 19:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Is the video for "Cowards" official? I found it on thefeeding.net with Chuck Lidell in it... it was pretty cool.  If it is official... maybe it can be added to the videography...?   DMighton 08:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Discographies
Hey there - I'm about to move the Slipknot discography page back to the non-capitalised version. All other discogs, biogs and so on do not have a capital for "discography" or "biography". I've been corrected myself in the past hence when I create the discogs I deliberately use a lower case "d". IainP (talk) 10:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi again - thanks for the reply. I actually came across something yesterday when I was looking at something completely different and it's standard Wiki policy to avoid capital letters in titles except for proper nouns and first letters of article names. I knew I'd seen it somewhere. It'll be in the style guide.
 * Yeah, the discogs could all (and I mean all) do with some standardisation but that'd be a huge task. What I've been doing is simply ripping out what's in a band's main article (however it's been laid out) and popping it into a page of its own. The Maiden one already existed as an article, but the information between it and the main Maiden page wasn't consistent so I simply tidied that. I think it's the Machine Head one where I started with a simple table and some nice chap recently did just what you said and added an extra column for the sleeve images. It's not difficult, but just time-consuming.
 * Talking of time, it's just not something I have a lot of at the moment. I'm working my notice out at work, finishing this Friday. Tuesday next week, I fly to Thailand and I'll be spending a few months doing charity work with random internet access until I get to NZ later in the year. So if you want to take over on the discogs... feel free!
 * As for the Slipknot info, if you think it need adding or is worthwhile... go ahead! The worst that can happen is someone else disagrees and takes it off :) IainP (talk) 09:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

James Herbert's Novels - Do you feel they deserve Articles?

 * 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 23:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the compliment you left on my talk page. I don't know what more I'll do with Halloween. I feel burned out at the moment. . . but eventually I would like to revise the articles for the remaining films. By the way, have you considered joining/contributing to the newly-created Horror WikiProject? Dmoon1 11:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Collateral damage
I'm sorry you've been caught in collateral damage from a block carried out against a vandal. I have unblocked, so you should be able to edit again. Please see Autoblock for more information. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 22:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Horror collaboration of the month
I happened to see your post to Myleslong page. I have nominated Phantasm (film) as the first WP:HCOTM. You can go there to add your support, or to nominate a different article. The page is brand new, and currently states that an article will be chosen after two weeks, so I imagine we will choose the HCOTM on May 23, 2006. --Fuhghettaboutit 04:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I was going to reply and say basically the same thing. Please either support the nomination for Phantasm or nominate a different article; it'd be good to "get the ball rolling" on this.  --Myles Long 14:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh

 * 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 )" (in this case, = "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)

Advice
First, I pick an article that is a stub or that has a minimal amount of info. Check the edit history to see how long it's been since someone edited it other than the occasional minor edit. The hardest articles to edit or the ones that already have a large number of edits working on it -- any change you make is likely to be reverted.

Second, I never make an edit to the article until I have a complete article in front of me. I copy and paste the text from the "edit this page" thumbnail of the article and take it to the Sandbox. I also save a copy on an extra disk and run it through spell check on my word processor. When I feel like I'm finished, I copy and paste my text into the article page, save it, and write a description of my changes on the discussion page. The only problem with this is that it makes your edit count appear low.

Third, to research a film article, I start at the Internet Movie Database and check out the external review section for the film on the left menu bar. This contains review from different critics with the most prominent at the top of the list. I also pay a trip to print.google.com and perform a search for whatever movie I'm looking for. The number of pages you are allowed to look at in each book is limited, but it's usually enough to give you an idea about the importance or unimportance of the film. Most college or university libraries have these books, so you can check them out and then scour the footnotes or endnotes for more references. To find images, just perform a search at images.google.com. Also check for official websites for films or directors. These often contain detailed production and cast information.

Writing is the hard part -- compiling all the info you've gathered together. I find it best to focus on one section at a time, but if you run across something you think might be good in another section, make a note of it in you Favorites folder or something. Organization generally works best as seen in the first three Halloween articles, Tenebrae (film), or Casablanca (film) (the last two are the ones I based the organization of Halloween on). Every movie is different, though, so you have to adapt the structure of the article to the needs of the film.

For references, citations, etc., get well acquainted with the Manual of Style, also check out How to write a great article. I generally use the Chicago Manual of Style method of citing references, since that is the one I've been trained to use in my profession.

I'm sorry I can't offer anything more detailed. I'm not very good about explaining things like this. The best teacher is experience. Dmoon1 05:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Templates - Could you tell me how to make them?
The short answer is to go to "Template:" (replacing  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.

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)


 * 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 20:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Phantasm

 * This would be my first attempt also at a horror article major write up as my areas of concentration have been elsewhere. I nominated this article as the movie made such an impression on me when I first saw it and it's fairly well know, but I'm now second guessing the choice. Maybe the first article should be on a very well known film so that others can get involved while the project is finding its legs. In any case contribute any way you can or wish. --Fuhghettaboutit

195.93.21.106

 * 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 16:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

HCOTM
We have a winner!

Horror Wiki
I appreciate the offer. I would be glad to help out. I have a few pages that I am currently watching over vigorously, and so, may not be as helpful as I am capable of at this moment. But, I would certainly like to be of some help. Just tell me what to do. Bignole 20:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks. I'll put that Chrisopher Lee info on my to-do list and see if I can hunt up a source for it. Dmoon1 00:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I added a blurb about Christopher Lee; I also found out Peter Cushing was offered the role and declined. Dmoon1 18:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

NOTLD
The Night of the Living Dead article is almost ready (it's just not quite there yet), but when it is I'll let you know. I've still got C. Lee as Dr. Loomis on my to-do list. I think this information comes from the 25th Anniversary DVD that has the documentary on it; I just haven't set down to watch it again and see. Once I do this I'll add the reference. Dmoon1 22:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for you support vote; I totally forgot to let you know when I posted it on FAC last night. Dmoon1 16:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Nineteen Eighty-Four (TV programme)
Nineteen Eighty-Four (TV programme) 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)


 * Thanks for the heads-up. If I get time I'll give it a look, but I probably won't be able to. Cheers, though. Angmering 22:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well at the end of the day it is a *very* old article, in FA terms anyway. And it was written when I was quite a young Wikipedian, when such trivialities as "references" hardly bothered me! To be brutally honest I've probably been expecting this for a while. Hopefully some day though I can get this deserving production back into proper FA shape, or others will. Angmering 00:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course I don't find it offensive. I know that I'm capable of helping to build much better FAs now &mdash; Sydney Newman is one I am particularly proud of my efforts on, for example. As for the Quatermass pieces &mdash; Experiment is probably too short for an FA now, but I might try and see if I can find time to save The Pit, as I think it's closer to the current standard and actually already has a couple of citations, plus more material available written about it. Angmering 20:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Coronation Street/FAR
thanks. would you mind posting a comment to that effect ("don't think when someone places an article up for FAR its up to them to actually address the article's problems, but up to the people who so-called wish to save them") at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review? cheers. Zzzzz 19:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

TPM
It's all good. &mdash; Deckill e r 03:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Be nice. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 05:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, you have to learn that there is no ONE way of writing a type of article. You cite Halloween and Night of the Living Dead as the way to present a cast for a list, well, that's two FAs. Take a look at Casablanca (film), Blade Runner, V for Vendetta (film), Richard III (1955 film), for starters. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 07:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * V for Vendetta (film) - 19 May, 2006
 * Richard III (1955 film) - July, 2006
 * Halloween (film) - 26 April, 2006.

Your arguement is shot. Stand down. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 00:14, August 5, 2006(UTC)
 * You're quite the ignorant one. ....(Complain)

(Let us to it pell-mell) 01:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC) It appears to me that you don't actually read all of these articles, you just see a listed cast and immediately go ape-shit. Maybe you should read the content, and I think you'll find that they fill all the criteria, and more. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 22:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC) Can't fight your own battles, eh? ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 22:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Can You Help As Admin?
Sure, let me know what the story is and I'll do my best. --Myles Long 23:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

jesse interview
Seems to me to be blatant self-promotion: "Credit/s: Anthony Morgan" assuming Anthony Morgan ==LuciferMorgan Spearhead 15:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Bolt Thrower
FYI I actually wrote most of the BT article and based it largely on my FAQ. Also at the time of writing the FAQ was the only webpage on the web providing more than just a list albums and members. Hence it is kept on the list.

Plus you linked your iv on several marginally relevant pages. Spearhead 15:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

A Truce
No probs dude. Anyway... having relevant interviews as external links is very much in line with WP policy. And yeah, Jesse's page does need a lot of work and you iv may be used as a source for it. For the moment, you could put the link on the talk page, with a note. Maybe someone will pick it up. It's not really a high prio with me, but I'll fix the ND page. Spearhead 16:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

album info boxes
There are lots of albums that need infoboxes. Look at the. E.g. Black Magick Sorceress, Bloodcult, Bolted to the Cross. Bands that need extension or large improvement are mostly bands that do not exist anymore since a long time and have little information as such Coroner, Hobbs Angel of Death. Other examples are Abscess (band), Cadaveria, Opera IX,. In short there is lots

As far as chronology is concerned... I think the official policy states that live and comps and stuff don't go in there, but most of us do anyway (except singles which are a diff project).

I put a speedy tag on it. If that doesn't help, try to use the template.Spearhead 11:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Rotting Christ
I simply redirected one to the other. for how to deletion look at wp:delete. Spearhead 08:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Influence on films
It depends. If the film influenced other films, then place it in an influence section and explain the influence (as in the Halloween (film) article). If other films influenced the film, as in the case of Halloween influencing Nightmare on Elm Street, then you might want to explain the relationship somewhere in a production section. For example, if it's an element in the script, maybe explain the relationship in a writing sub-section (as in the Night of the Living Dead article) or if its a more of a style or thematic influence used by the director, explain it in a directing sub-section. Of course, you will need some kind of source beside just the film (maybe a documentary or film critique or something), or else any relationship between two films you point out will be considered original research. Hope this answers your question. Dmoon1 03:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Unblocked
Sorry about the collateral damage. I went ahead and unblocked the IP address that was autoblocked. Let me know if it worked. Nufy8 22:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Deal or No Deal
What exactly do you think needs more wikification in this article? Lambertman 14:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand what you are saying, but since the language does not change, that would read "Deal or No Deal is the United States version of Deal or No Deal..." Seems redundant. Lambertman 14:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Gotcha. I think most of those foreign version stubs should actually be folded into Deal or No Deal around the world, as they were created by an editor who was hellboint on proving a point. I just haven't gotten around to proposing anything yet. Thanks! 15:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: References
Not sure exactly what you thought needed correcting. Look at the history section of your draft to see if what I did was helpful. BTW, you need the authors' names of the essays you have quoted from in the notes. (I think its refs 4 & 5). Dmoon1 14:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm heading out to dinner/theatre tonight, so can't look at it just now, but I was trying to work on an article yesterday that had a similar problem (Bolivarian Revolution) &mdash; all of the references are listing twice at the bottom, and after spending hours on it, I couldn't figure out why. I'm actually wondering if there is a new problem in the cite template, but I don't know who to ask?  (ah, heck, now that I've told you that, I look at it today, and it's fine.  Something is weird.) I'll check in with you later tonight, and have a look at your article, but maybe you can ask around in the meantime.  I think something is amiss globally ...  Sandy 19:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't worry, your article is OK. You can fix it with a WP:PURGE as described in this thread at WP:FN. Gimmetrow 20:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm heading out, will catch up later, but it looks like it is something global, according to Gimmetrow? That Gimmetrow never misses a beat.  I'll catch up tonight.  By the way, don't forget to put the footnote after the punctuation (see WP:FN).  Sandy 20:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I just performed a minor reference clean-up. Some of the references were not properly formatted. For books, for example, the citation order should be author, title, publication data, page # (author is always first). For collections of essays, the order should be essay author, essay title, in title of book, editors, publication data, page #. You had all the correct info, it just out of order. Dmoon1 20:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Chrome Division
I have no idea... Probably the best place to start is the delection log for that day and find out which admin deleted it. Otherwise post a msg on WP:AN. Spearhead 16:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * see Criteria for speedy deletion: Unremarkable people or groups/vanity pages. If you want to reinstate the article, your best bet is to get in touch with the admin who deleted it or if that doesn't work, with any other admin. Spearhead 19:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Only one album.Geni 20:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Look at WP:MUSIC. It lists criteria for WP inclusion. It's just one of the criteria and if at least one is matched, it's deemed notable. Tho it also says it's a guideline, not a policy - so there may be very good reasons to still include it when it doesn't meet the criteria and the other way around as well. Being a side project of Dimmu Borgir's Shagrath seems a reasonable reason for inclusion. I can't recall I've seen the article, so can't judge right now, but probably the article didn't sufficiently state its notabilty. At times the maddest deletions are carried out and the most idiotic articles are kept - yeeha to all the knowledgable admins around here. Spearhead 21:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm actually not sure, I think you can just re-create the article and make sure that it states notability. Otherwise there is an undeletion policy but I think that's only for AFD'ed articles Spearhead 21:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess your best bet is the WP:AN. Also the guideline reads "Failing to satisfy the notability guidelines is not a criterion for speedy deletion." Anyway. Contact another admin and state what's going on, make sure you include which admin it is. Otherwise, be ignorant and just recreate it. Spearhead 21:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok it's been undeleted. Please be clearer as to why a band is notable in future.Geni 22:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * oh and feel free to disspute with admins. we shouldn't block you from wikipedia for doing that.Geni 22:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * (from my talk page) Looks like this has been settled. Sorry for the delayed reply.  --Myles Long 18:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

songs
Redirect them to the main album article. Articles on songs are generaly considered to be one of the things that should not exist (there are exceptions such as 867-5309/Jenny but it is a fairly good general rule).

Spoilers
There is an ongoing debate at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning, the Spoiler warning guideline's discussion page. I'm not sure what the current status of the debate is, I haven't been following it since early August. Dmoon1 20:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)