User talk:MadeYourReadThis/Archives/2011/March

The Downlink: Issue 3

 * You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Spaceflight at 09:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC).

Washington forensic images again
Since you've not updated the image pages I asked you about in November, this issue (recently queried on the washington talk page) is now at WP:Possibly unfree files. (Don't feel picked on -- all of the images at George Washington are or will be undergoing scrutiny.)  Magic ♪piano 15:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reminding me about that. I've responded there and edited each image to make it very clear what my (limited) involvement is there.  This is particularly important because I've been contacted by someone wishing to publish those images and I'm not 100% sure of the status there.  Photographing artwork and even architecture can be thorny.--RadioFan (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi!
My curiosity may be getting the best of me, but I noticed that you are not an administrator. Do you have any interest in making a run? Strikerforce (talk) 10:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll give it a run. With so many more editors working to keep the new page patrol backlog down, I think I'd like to shift gears a bit and act on some of those expired prods, CSDs and ARV reports.  I took a run a little over a year ago and withdrew when it was pretty clear that I wasn't there yet.  Are you offering to nominate?
 * Yes. Give me a day or so to prepare a nom statement. Strikerforce (talk) 00:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you do me a favor (as well as probably others during the discussion) and opt-in to the monthly counts? Strikerforce (talk) 23:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you point me in the right direction to do that?--RadioFan (talk) 00:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Click here and go three sections down the page for the instructions. Strikerforce (talk) 01:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ready? I appear to have made an error in getting the talk page to link properly, however. I followed the instructions posted as far as how to create the page, but when I went to create the (2) to denote your second run, I kept getting an error. Could be a browser (Chrome) issue, but more likely my inexperience at the nomination process. I'm going to seek out help, but if you want to go ahead and knock out the questions, feel free! Never mind. Complete brain fart on the talk page issue. Long week at work has fried me! Strikerforce (talk) 19:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi!
My curiosity may be getting the best of me, but I noticed that you are not an administrator. Do you have any interest in making a run? Strikerforce (talk) 10:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll give it a run. With so many more editors working to keep the new page patrol backlog down, I think I'd like to shift gears a bit and act on some of those expired prods, CSDs and ARV reports.  I took a run a little over a year ago and withdrew when it was pretty clear that I wasn't there yet.  Are you offering to nominate?
 * Yes. Give me a day or so to prepare a nom statement. Strikerforce (talk) 00:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you do me a favor (as well as probably others during the discussion) and opt-in to the monthly counts? Strikerforce (talk) 23:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you point me in the right direction to do that?--RadioFan (talk) 00:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Click here and go three sections down the page for the instructions. Strikerforce (talk) 01:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ready? I appear to have made an error in getting the talk page to link properly, however. I followed the instructions posted as far as how to create the page, but when I went to create the (2) to denote your second run, I kept getting an error. Could be a browser (Chrome) issue, but more likely my inexperience at the nomination process. I'm going to seek out help, but if you want to go ahead and knock out the questions, feel free! Never mind. Complete brain fart on the talk page issue. Long week at work has fried me! Strikerforce (talk) 19:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Rektorsakademien
Oops, I mistakenly referred to the speedy tag on this article as mine when it was originally yours, I was confused about my improvement notices and thought the CSD was mine too. Sorry about that. I think the removal is still valid after finding a few matches in GNews, probably enough to warrant an AFD discussion rather than speedy. Thanks Fæ (talk) 13:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note but are you sure about the potential notability here? The article makes no claim of notability.  Could be a case of a new editor who is not experienced in the ways of Wikipedia notability but this organization didn't seem like one that set itself apart from thousands and thousands like it worldwide.--RadioFan (talk) 13:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In terms of potential, I think so. The source Webfinanser (a business news website) states that (translated) "Rektorsakademien is the leading network of school leaders and business" and there are many other matches apparent in a GNews search and gets mentioned in a few books using GBooks. This seems plenty of doubt for a speedy though possibly a PROD or an AFD might be appropriate if it seems overly ambiguous (though with further sources available, improvement in the short term looks likely to me). Fæ (talk) 14:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, thanks for the response and the thorough analysis. These non-English sources can be a bear to navigate through.--RadioFan (talk) 15:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

ikoniqueOS
I am challenging your suggestion that ikoniqueOS is "unremarkable software"?

Have you actually used the latest version of this FOS software before requesting deletion?

I am unaware of any software currently providing the functionality of ikoniqueOS?

As you are suggesting that this page be deleted, please provide examples of existing software that performs the functionality of ikoniqueOS or alternatively explain the basis upon which you formed your opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plogo (talk • contribs) 16:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, Plogo. My name is Strikerforce and I am a talk-page "stalker", if you will, of RadioFan's. As a reminder, the burden of proof in regard to notability is on the editor wishing to add certain information to the encyclopedia, not necessarily the editor who wishes to strike it or suggest deletion of the article. RadioFan typically has pretty good judgement when it comes to matters of deletion, so the question that I will pose to you is simply this: What have you provided within the article to establish notability of the software? Without sources (preferably from technological journals / websites / etc and not the publisher's own website), notability is not established and that makes an article vulnerable to a deletion suggestion. Strikerforce (talk) 17:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Adding to Strikerforce's comments. Deletion isn't something taken lightly.  The problem with ikoniqueOS is that, as Strikerforce notes, there is nothing there to tell us how this product might meet notability guidelines, the only thing we learn from the article is that the software exists but unfortunately, thats not enough.  You'll need to add footnotes to reliable sources which cover the software in some detail.  If you need guidance, you can ask for help on your talk page, someone (maybe me, maybe Strikerforce, maybe another editor) will do what they can to point you in the right direction.  I know it seemed a bit abrupt but this method of deletion was chosen over immediate deletion to give you a few days to improve the article.--RadioFan (talk) 18:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi!
My curiosity may be getting the best of me, but I noticed that you are not an administrator. Do you have any interest in making a run? Strikerforce (talk) 10:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll give it a run. With so many more editors working to keep the new page patrol backlog down, I think I'd like to shift gears a bit and act on some of those expired prods, CSDs and ARV reports.  I took a run a little over a year ago and withdrew when it was pretty clear that I wasn't there yet.  Are you offering to nominate?
 * Yes. Give me a day or so to prepare a nom statement. Strikerforce (talk) 00:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you do me a favor (as well as probably others during the discussion) and opt-in to the monthly counts? Strikerforce (talk) 23:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you point me in the right direction to do that?--RadioFan (talk) 00:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Click here and go three sections down the page for the instructions. Strikerforce (talk) 01:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ready? I appear to have made an error in getting the talk page to link properly, however. I followed the instructions posted as far as how to create the page, but when I went to create the (2) to denote your second run, I kept getting an error. Could be a browser (Chrome) issue, but more likely my inexperience at the nomination process. I'm going to seek out help, but if you want to go ahead and knock out the questions, feel free! Never mind. Complete brain fart on the talk page issue. Long week at work has fried me! Strikerforce (talk) 19:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time and effort to do that. I'll mull the questions for a bit before answering them.--RadioFan (talk) 01:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool. Just let me know when they're ready and I'll transclude. Strikerforce (talk) 06:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Questions have been answered. Let the fun begin.--RadioFan (talk) 21:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Almost ready to go... don't forget to "accept" the nomination on the page. ;) I'll be around off and on this evening, so if you want to go ahead and transclude after accepting, feel free. Strikerforce (talk) 23:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * oops, missed that. All fixed up now.--RadioFan (talk) 23:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Off we go! Strikerforce (talk) 23:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:WOCY logo.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:WOCY logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 06:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Colin Preston Rocked And Rolled
Your PROD on Colin Preston Rocked And Rolled has been contested by the author, and I have taken it to Articles for deletion/Colin Preston Rocked And Rolled. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Accusation levied against you on my talk page (but not by me)
See User:RadioFan and User:RHaworth. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  15:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. Doesn't look like something worth responding to, nothing positive would come out of it and likely only antagonize this person more.  Several editors in those AFDs have their mind made up that I and others are out to get them or Sci-Fi fandom.  I really wish they'd put their energies into improving the articles instead of complaining about conspiracies.--RadioFan (talk) 15:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I see your point; seemed courteous to me to let you know. I will add that it won't help matter any if you use the term "sci-fi" (considered pejorative by a large element within science fiction fandom). -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  16:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, thanks for letting me know, I appreciate it. I Didn't know that "sci-fi" was viewed negatively.  Learned something new today.  Any idea why it's considered desparaging?  That's suprising considering now many libraries and books stores label sections as "Sci-Fi/Fantasy".--RadioFan (talk) 17:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, many thought the articles weren't that badly in need of improvement, or in my own personal case, had dropped away from Wikipedia for a while until this was brought to my attention.


 * The phrase "sci-fi" was coined by the late Forest Ackerman, to rhyme with "hi-fi", an abbreviation for "high fidelity". As author Robert Silverberg has pointed out, however, the Latin root for the word "fiction" is fic-, not "fi-", so the abbreviation is abusive from the point of view of language purists.  Also, it has a connotation within the field of the worst of science or speculative fiction.  -- Davidkevin (talk) 05:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Your RfA
Much as I hate to be the bringer of bad news for the third time in one day, I'm afraid I've closed your RfA as unsuccessful. It seems the consensus is that you are not (at least not yet) ready for adminship. I have no doubt that you have the project's best interests at heart and your RfA was a sincere offer to help. Since most of the concerns were over your understanding of key policies, especially BLP and CSD, I would suggest spending some time in the mainspace applying these policies in a "hands-on" way to enhance your understanding of the policies and their application. Some editors like to keep a log in their userspace of articles they nominate for deletion, others like to pick the brains of experienced admins and I'm sure there are plenty of other methods people have used to get to grips with CSD. The most important thing is to try to learn lessons from the feedback you've been given (even though it stings, as I know from my own experience) and, rather than take it personally, use it to make yourself a better editor. don;t hesitate to ping me if you need anything, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   19:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * One editor asked about mentoring, is that something you'd be willing to help with?--RadioFan (talk) 20:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In principle, I'd be more than happy to help you out, but I'm not really the best person to ask about CSD. Certainly I can help you with just about every other aspect of adminship (though it might be wise to let the dust settle first), but you'd have to ask another admin about CSD. Off the top of my head, I'd recommend SoWhy or WereSpielChequers. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   21:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll be happy to help with any questions about WP:UAA if you want to make reports there, RF. - Dank (push to talk) 22:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know wether you would be a good admin (I personally think we should hand it out a lot less, and to adults, and to people who write a lot. None of these are accepted by the community, but it's what I think the project needs to get past a video game webforum, and really become top notch content, real encyclopedia, not just a googledump).  You actually had a lot more than the other two dudes (who were incredibly stubblishly light).  To be honest, still have some concerns about you, so would strongly urge more, more, more writing.  I don't understand any of the CSD stuff, so can't tell if you are too frisky with the deletes or if you were honest and then got screwed.  In any case, I strongly urge writing articles as the most important aspect of the Wiki (not mopping or RFA or any of that).  Good luck, and whatever, I just feel bad for you dealing with the public denial.  Keep the chin up!TCO (talk) 01:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the note but unfortunately after going through two of these, your point of view isn't shared by all RFA voters. Writing articles comes secondary to a clean record with CSD and prods.  Right or wrong, that's the way it is.  I didn't ask for this RFA but thought I'd give it ago.--RadioFan (talk) 01:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

(struck comment)


 * Did you think that comment was cute or funny? You seemed to be trying to help and then that.  I dont know what to make of you.--RadioFan (talk) 02:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:WYVK logo.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:WYVK logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 06:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair use claim
I don't udnerstand what you mean here. 22:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Screen snapshots from television programs should be used only on the articles about that television program. That's all fair use allows.  See WP:NFCI for more information.--RadioFan (talk) 23:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * How is the picture I've uploaded replaceable? The building does not exist anymore and the current state is impossible to get near to even fi you are a reported. Nergaal (talk) 04:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * King of Hearts reworded the replaceability rationale so that it meets fair use policy, the deletion tag has been removed. --RadioFan (talk) 11:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

You (RadioFan) Censoring G-WAN was pure vandalism
This night, the article I just wrote yesterday evening was already flagged for deletion:

"It is proposed that this article be deleted because of the following concern:

largely promotional article on an unremarkable web server. Claims are referenced with primary sources or blogs. Lacks coverage in 3rd party reliable sources."

I liked the "Lacks coverage in 3rd party reliable sources" comment since the external link targeted here is for a "Swiss Federal Institute of Technology" Laboratory Student involved in the "Distributed Information Systems Laboratory".

1) I hardly can be accused of having any grip on the Academic world ("3rd Party");

2) the "Distributed Information Systems Laboratory" of one of the most respected universities in the world can hardly be qualified of NOT being a "reliable source".

Sure, G-WAN's comparative benchmarks hurt some sensibilities. But this is no excuse for blatant lies.

The reason for you to remove G-WAN this time was "addition with no article".

Since the G-WAN article HAS BEEN CENSORED by Wikipedia 'moderators' like the one making this remark, this is a vicious circle: they make their own luck to justify blatant censorship.

In the past, similar fallacious arguments were used, like removing all references and then claiming that no references were available, or claiming that G-WAN is not 'notable' while G-WAN is the fastest Web Server on BOTH Windows AND Linux (and by a large margin, see the links above), and whether user-mode or kernel-mode servers are considered.

For the record, "notability" means "the quality that makes somebody or something worth paying attention to".

PLEASE STOP THE BLATANT CENSORSHIP Bugapi (talk) 12:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * First off, ease up a bit. Censorship is a strong accusation as is accusing other editors, me or anyone else, of "blatant lies".  This  kind of agression isn't going to save this article in fact it's probably going to get most editors to turn a deaf ear to any legitimate claims you may have simply because you behavior is not unlike spammers who come here only to promote and not to contribute.  You are a new editor so I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt please dont make it difficult. In the end, this article must meet the same standards every other article must meet.  It is your responsibility as the article creator to sufficiently reference any claims there with reliable sources.  Blogs such as the ones mentioned in the article do not meet this standard.  Notability for Wikipedia's purposes of determining what is worthy for an article is defined here WP:N, please read it. Your reference to the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology also cannot be used as Wikipedia is itself not a reliable source.  Also web pages published by the owners of this software are primary sources and cannot be used.  Your contributions are welcome Since you've removed the proposed deletion without addressing the issues mentioned in the that proposal or outlined above, the next step is a a deletion discussion, which unlike the prod, is binding.  Should the consensus be delete, recreation will be very difficult.  I urge you to weigh in on the deletion discussion but you should consider calming down a bit first.  The "Wikipedia is out to get me" approach is not viewed very favorably.   I know this can all be a bit daunting for a new editor but please slow down and take a minute to familiarize yourself with the processes here. Your contributions are welcome but there are policies and guidelines you and every other editor must adhere to if you want to contribute.--RadioFan (talk) 13:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Anti-vandalism tools, such as Twinkle, Huggle, and rollback should not be used to undo good-faith changes in content disputes unless an appropriate edit summary is used.

DON'T ABUSE THE POWER THAT WAS GIVEN TO YOU. Bugapi (talk) 12:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Twinkle was used to tag the page for proposed deletion and then for deletion discussion. None of your changes were reverted.  Please dont make such serious accusations so lightly.--RadioFan (talk) 13:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You did not answer any of my arguments - proof that your goal is not to evaluate the value of this article. The fact that you go as far as to deny the EPFL existence *because* it is referenced on Wikipedia reveals how much you value fair talks (to check its existence, you could click on the wikipedia link to reach the EPFL website). Instead of discussing the merit of your deletion, instead of presenting arguments, you are threatening me of a permanent exclusion. You are clearly NOT serving the Temple of Knowledge.

Bugapi (talk) 13:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You are misunderstanding the basis of Wikipedia. I dont deny the existence of EPFL, it's existence doesn't do anything to support the claim you are making in the article.  As I mentioned above, Wikipedia isn't considered a reliable source for purposes of establishing notability of other articles anyway.  You seem to be trying to put all of this on me but remember, it is your responsibility to sufficiently source what you add to Wikipedia.--RadioFan (talk) 13:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * OK. Now the $1m question: why, on all the Web servers listed on Wikipedia, the only one that MUST be "deleted permanently" (to quote you) is G-WAN, the smallest, fastest and safest (no vulnerabilities ever, another notable difference) of all. This is a simple question. Bugapi (talk) 13:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You still dont get it. This may be the greatest piece of software in the world, but if there aren't sufficient references in 3rd party reliable sources to back up those claims, it's not going to be a part of Wikipedia.  Right or wrong thats the way it is.  I didn't make the rules.  I'm not an administrator so I cant even delete the article, all I've done is bring it up for discussion and bring it to the attention of administrators who will make the final judgement on whether or not it will be deleted.  You should focus your efforts on bringing the article up to standards that prevent it's deletion, not on me.--RadioFan (talk) 13:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "Not on me". You are kidding, right? You want to delete this article but will NOT TELL WHY G-WAN MUST BE ERADICATED (while many other *less notable* Web servers have your benediction).Bugapi (talk) 14:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Cherokee webserver AfD
Thanks for letting me know. There was a fair amount of search engine cut and paste in prepping that nomination, so it took a few minutes. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Page Bhaskar Mukherjee
I have noticed a page of Bhaskar Mukherjee has been deleted. Actually I feel the page by mistake have been made by different user without understanding the proper reason of deletion. Now I feel the page of Bhaskar Mukherjee should be uploaded, provided a suggestion to incorporate changes on that profile. What citation is essential, Shall the link to original article or who cite the work of the author. There are so many person's biography I found without having any citation. And various reasons i don't feel their work is as parallel as wiki policy to maintain. Due to that It looks hazy to undertsand the connotation of term citation. Better give certain suggestion. 1. How biographer re-submit with necessary modification of that page. 2. How to put citation in more better manner. I common have have problem to understand all technicalities of wiki. So better if some simple suggestions are available. 3. What step-by-step process should one follow to upload properly. --Open3215 (talk) 08:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Just now I checked the criteria and found that Dr. Bhaskar Mukherjee has fulfill atleast criteria no. 1,2,3,4,6,7,8. How then some one suggest this entry to delete. There are so many files in wiki, having criteria below these standrads. How then wiki kept all such entries? --Open3215 (talk) 09:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * This article was deleted after a discussion among several editors who felt, at least then, that the article did not meet WP:PROF. If you feel that things have changed or that sources were missed in that discussion, you may request a Deletion review. --RadioFan (talk) 11:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

2011 First Flight High School protests and walkouts
No, I will not delete it — absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Moreover, I see no reason why this must be false: it's not a case of "____ can fly and won a gold meddal in teh olympiks every year since they started lulz". Why can't we just let the AFD run its course? Nyttend (talk) 03:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not a border line case here. It's some high school vandals who have ignored requests for verifiable references.  The AFD is snowballing, multiple editors believe it to be a hoax.  Why must we let the AFD run its course?  Why let the vandals use this page as their personal blog?--RadioFan (talk) 03:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Because it's not a blatant hoax. As I already told you, a blatant hoax is one that any editor can see to be false, and I cannot so see it.  Please read the following quote from WP:HOAX —"Hoaxes are generally not speedy deletion candidates. It is usually not enough for just one or two editors to investigate a hoax, as there have been cases in the past where something has been thought to have been a hoax by several editors, but has turned out to be true, and merely obscure. Suspected hoaxes should be investigated thoroughly, and only in extreme cases of blatant and obvious hoaxes should articles be tagged for speedy deletion as db-hoax."It's obviously obscure enough that it's deserving of deletion, but it's not blatant enough to be deleted speedily under this criterion.  Nyttend (talk) 03:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess its a mater of opinion. I and another editor see it as a pretty blatant hoax. Do you see a reason to keep the AFD open any longer.  It would be nice to put an end to the persistent editing of this article.--RadioFan (talk) 04:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

External media box
RadioFan, please don't use external media boxes when they obviously interfere with the display of the article and links can be dropped just as easily into the External links box. For that matter, if a link would not normally go in the External links box, don't throw them into a media box. The only time such a box is useful is for longer articles that can tolerate the visual disruption. This is definitely not one of those cases. I'm not going to remove that link again, but I am going to restore some semblance of visual orderliness. I'm collecting references and will try and clean up that article (and the individual ship articles) once I get some spare time. To that end, I'm not sure there is even a need for all three articles..."NASA recovery ships" basically duplicates what the ship articles do (i.e., nothing there can't be merged into the individual ship articles), so I'm tempted to turn that article into a disambiguation page. Thoughts? — Huntster (t @ c) 03:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you'd like to merge them all into a single article, retaining the infoboxes from each ship, I'd be happy to assist with that. That would also help alleviate your concerns about the overall look.  I cannot support removal of the media boxes.  They add to the article, and highlight 2 external videos that are very relavant far better than external links do.--RadioFan (talk) 04:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I couldn't merge the individual ships into a single article; they are notable individually, in my opinion. The generic article is the redundant item here. I'll have to ponder on this, see what makes the most sense. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The recovery ships and the process of SRB recovery is in itself notable. If you think the individual ship articles should be retained, thats fine but the main article on the recover ships and process  shouldn't be deleted.--RadioFan (talk) 04:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)