User talk:Oanabay04/Archive 2

Retitling articles
It's quite simple really, you just click the "move" tab at the top of the page. The whole process is outlined at Help:Move :)--Closedmouth (talk) 03:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Nyuk nyuk nyuk
Hey - just wanted to drop you a line and thank you for the excellent work adding references on Three Stooges. --Badger Drink (talk) 10:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem, Badger Drink. The books are out there, and it does not take much to simply sift through a few pages, figures out how to properly put in a citation, and be done. Good stuff! Thanx, again! I appreciate the feedback... --Oanabay04 (talk) 9:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Page Move
Did you use the "move" tab to rename the page Whoops I'm an Indian to Whoops, I'm an Indian!? It doesn't look like it. If you don't do it that way you lose edit history, links, etc. Cut/paste and create a new article is not the way to rename an article. Arthurrh (talk) 23:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * see answer on my talk page - doesn't need to be in two places. Or we can do it here if you prefer. Arthurrh (talk) 00:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

RE: Back to the Woods
No problem! I even ensured all the pages that linked to the original one were updated with the new link. Thanks for your comment. Lugnuts (talk) 15:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Flags
Yes, flags are slowly disappearing from infoboxes. Admittedly I am trying to help that. :) In general flags in infoboxes are being frowned according to the manual of style Manual of Style (flags) and especially in birth at death section. Just the wording United States is more clear than a flag. Plus it helps to prevent really stupid edits. See this edit. Totally correct but utterly pointless. Even for that reason it is better to just remove the flag. Garion96 (talk) 21:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Our Gang shorts
Hi - I think the page you've created already exists at Our Gang filmography. Lugnuts (talk) 15:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

re: Our Gang names
No, it's fine (and preferable) to move them, but like I said before, you have to move them using the "move page" tab or have an admin do it for you. This is so that the page history is preserved. See the request I set up for these articles at Talk:Allen "Farina" Hoskins. I'm pretty sure the request will go through, and a mod will move the pages to name spaces without the nicknames.

But, again, don't do copy and paste moves. :) Thanks. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * See Help:Moving a page, particularly this part:


 * Help:Moving a page:The "move page" function keeps the entire edit history of the page before and after the move in one place, as if the page had always been named that way. So, you should never just move a page by cutting all the text out of one page, and pasting it into a new one; old revisions, notes, and attributions are much harder to keep track of if you do that. (But you may have to if, for instance, you're splitting a page into multiple topics.

Typically, when you move a page, you simply click on the "move" tab at the top of the page, and specify the new name. The article will be moved to the new namespace, and the old namespace will automatically become a redirect. If any other articles redirected to the old page, those redirects will have to be manually re-routed ot point ot the new article name.

If you want to move an article to a name that is already taken (for example, if you wanted to move an article to a name currently used as a redirect, like with Darwood Kaye and Darwood "Waldo" Kaye), you would have to list it at Requested moves. A moderator would delete the redirect, and move the page for you, so that the page history is preserved.

For the current issue at hand, the Our Gang actor articles, just go to Talk:Allen "Farina" Hoskins and vote "yes" for the page moves. A moderator will eventually move the pages him/herself. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 14:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Uploading images.
Be careful about tagging images. Some of the images you've uploaded as public domain are indeed copyrighted (Image:SpankySPOOKYHOOKY.jpg, for example, is from Spooky Hooky, the copyright to which is now owned by RHI Entertainment.) The only Our Gang shorts in the public domain are already listed at Our Gang filmography. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 23:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Frankie Valli
I just wanted to say thanks for the cleanup on Frankie Valli's page. Looks good. Bbrownlie (talk) 04:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)bbrownlie

Allan Melvin
Hi. You went in and made some edits to Allan Melvin's article, and some edits were in the info-box. I don't know too much about how info-boxes work. I tried to fix this problem, but I could not figure out how to do so. I thought that maybe you would know how. In his info-box (when you are in "editing mode"), it has the following three lines:


 * occupation   = Actor, Impressionist, Voice Over
 * notable role = "Sam Franklin" on The Brady Bunch and "Barney Hefner" on All in the Family''
 * spouse       = Amalia Melvin (1943-2008)

But, when you look at the actual article, that middle line (notable role) does not appear at all. Can you fix this? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC))


 * You know, for the life of me, I cannot get the "notable roles" section to actually appear. I have added many infoboxes to celebrity entries. As I am sure you know when in edit mode, there are soooo many different infobox formats; some with little to no info, others with every possible award the person won. Yet, I cannot get the "notable roles" to appear. I believe it has something to do with its placement in the list of entries. Try an wiki editor. Sorry I could not be of better help. Oanabay04 (talk) 17:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's very strange ... I certainly cannot figure it all out, that's for sure. Anyway, thank you for your reply.  I will post the request for help elsewhere, and see if anyone else on Wikipedia can figure this out for us.  So, check back on the page every so often, and you will be able to see whether or not anyone fixed it. When I submit requests for help, it's hit or miss.  I either get the problem solved very quickly, or never at all.  Hopefully, someone out there can fix this one.  Thanks again!  (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC))


 * A follow-up. This (below) is what I found out from another user.  I thought that you might want to know, as you deal with actor info-boxes a lot.  I did a "Help Me" request on Wikipedia, and this was the Help reply that I received.  Just thought you might want to be aware of all this.  Thanks.  (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC))


 * This is the reply to my Help Me request:


 * The problem is simple: the template Infobox actor does not have a parameter titled 'notable role' and as far as I can see it never has. Thus any value assigned to that parameter is simply ignored. The only solution (if you wish this information to appear in the box) is to rewrite the template. Since the template is both protected and complicated, this probably involved asking someone else to do it. Algebraist 17:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * On close inspection, the field did once exist, but was removed following discussion here. Looks like you'll have an argument on your hands if you do want it back. Algebraist 18:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The Three Stooges Collection, Volume One: 1934-1936
Hey, I just wanted to let you know in case you didn't realize, the above article you just created has an image of a Woody Woodpecker DVD on it. I didn't know the filename for the proper image so I didn't want to try and edit it myself and muck things up for you. Cheers! Redfarmer (talk) 23:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I realized that once I saved the article. It has since been fixed. Thanx for the extra set of eyes, though! Much appreciated! Oanabay04 (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

RE: Monkey Businessmen
It's no problem! I've been a fan of the Three Stooges myself since I was a little kid, so I'm glad to help out whenever I can. ;^) — Cinemaniac (talk •  contribs) 01:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear it! The Stooges are a rather unappreciated and unrecognized comedy team in comparison to others, but I'm very happy to see that you and your fellow associates have been working on articles related to the team.  As I said before, I greatly admire the Stooges and their knack for physical comedy.  Y'know, the day they released the fifth Looney Tunes Golden Collection I was a little torn, since the new Three Stooges DVD was released at the same time; unfortunately, I've not been able to get my hands on either yet. :-/  — Cinemaniac (talk  •  contribs) 01:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW, if I remember correctly, the Three Stooges article states that, sometime in late 2007, there was to be a massive DVD release of colorized Stooges shorts by Legend Films. While I have the first wave from a few years ago (which includes Sing a Song of Six Pants, Malice in the Palace, and my own personal faves, Disorder in the Court and Brideless Groom), but so far I've not heard or seen anything else concerning such.  Were those DVDs ever released? Also, the last time I saw the Stooges on television was about one year ago, on Spike TV, during a certain holiday break—in contrast to my childhood, when the Stooges were featured on at least two or three different channels and run frequently.  Are there any plans to bring the show back to mainstream television? — Cinemaniac (talk  •  contribs) 02:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've removed that unsourced info concerning Legend Films' 2007 Stooge DVD release from the Three Stooges article, as that year is now gone and I've heard nothing of the sort. Feel free to re-add it with a reliable source, though. — Cinemaniac (talk  •  contribs) 20:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Duck Soup
I've noticed you're pretty good at adding and cleaning-up sources to articles. D'you think you could help cleanup the footnotes at the Duck Soup article? I've been thinking of ways to make the footnotes look less messy, but I'm afraid I might screw them up. Thanks! — Cinemaniac (talk •  contribs) 02:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

re: Our Gang
I used ampersands for McGowan & McNamara because they were working as a team. It's okay if you disagree with that usage. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 03:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Please use edit summaries
Thanks for the grammar fixes to Once. Just wanted to let you know that it is good Wikiquette to use the edit summary field to note what you've done with each edit you make, even the minor edits. Please read Help:Edit summary. Thank you. --Melty girl (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Autoblock
{unblock-auto|1=198.203.175.175|2= Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Aononemoose". The reason given for Aononemoose's block is: "Vandalism: mass redirecting". |3=Rockpocket|4=792946}

My IP adddress must be linked to the company I work for, as this is the second time my IP has been blocked. Please unblock when possible. Thanx! Oanabay04 (talk) 20:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, What a Merry Spring Day!
--Cinemaniac (talk •  contribs  •  critique) 03:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Long Island Newsletter Volume 1, Issue 1
Delivered by  Not hing  4  44  01:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

How High Is Up?
I like the improvements you did on the How High Is Up? article which I created last year. Did you do work on the page for the new DVD sets that are being released? Maybe we can work on an article for the Stoogeum in Gwynedd Valley--Ted-m (talk) 01:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Overlinking
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In, you added links to an article which did not add content or meaning, or repeated the same link several times throughout the article. Please see Wikipedia's guideline on links to avoid overlinking. Ward3001 (talk) 16:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you...
...a UnitedHealth Group employee? You should archive your talk page, btw. 198.203.177.177 (talk) 14:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Another Marx Brothers / Three Stooges crossover
The second Stooge DVD came out recently, and I got to see We Want Our Mummy for the first time in decades. Early in the film, the three walk into the museum curator's office wearing goofy masks and wigs. They spin 180 degrees, and it turns out the masks were on the backs of their heads - a schtick identical to that pulled by Harpo and Chico Marx a few years earlier in Duck Soup - and which suggests to me the gag is probably a lot older than that. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Oooooo - I had not even thought of that! Good catch. The fact that Curly refers to the skinny boxer in Grips, Grunts and Groans as 'duck soup" as well tell me the Stooge writers liked the Marxes. Nice catch! We Want Our Mummy is, to me, is a Curly Howard tour de force.Oanabay04 (talk) 13:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Could be a coincidence. "Duck soup" used to be a very common expression for "a cinch" or something easy to do. I worked with someone from Thailand who liked to use that expression. But the Marxes and the Howards-and-Fine were all children of vaudeville, and I'm sure they "borrowed" from each other and other vaudevillians a great deal. I might have mentioned before, that Three Little Pigskins borrows some bits from Horse Feathers, such as tackling the ball-carrying referee. Both teams were great in their own way. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I suppose the Marxes are held in somewhat higher esteem because of a degree of intellectualism that some see in their work - although I'm not sure they themselves saw it that way. I think one of them said they were "just four Jews trying to get a laugh." The same could be said of the Stooges (three Jews trying to get a laugh) except there was no accusation of intellectualism in the Stooges, it was pure dumb slapstick. But they did it so well. It's amazing to watch them at their best, as in the first two DVD series. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The idea of an actual Marx Brothers-Three Stooges crossover is one of those tantalizing might-have-beens. One could only imagine what kind of comic destruction these guys could have done together! :) Cinemaniac (talk  •  contribs  •  critique) 16:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Speaking of crossovers, recently three of my favorite comedians of the day joined together for a hilarious mock fight. I could easily see the influence of the Stooges in this particular fight, which was nothing but pure slapstick humor &mdash; maybe not exceptionally witty, but explicitly funny, and that, in the end, is all that matters.  :) Cinemaniac (talk  •  contribs  •  critique) 17:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah ha! The Colbert/O'Brien/Stewart feud was quite possibly the greatest stroke of genius that occured during the 2007–2008 Writers Guild of America strike. Absolute, crazy brilliance.Oanabay04 (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

About Images
Hey, Oanabay! I see you upload images. I've been trying to upload new images for The Colbert/O'Brien/Stewart feud, but so far haven't been able to successfully do this. Could you give me a step-by-step description of how you do it? I've read the instructions, but I still can't seem to get an image uploaded! If you could help me out in explaining it, I'd really appreciate it! Cinemaniac (talk •  contribs  •  critique) 03:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, here you go:
 * Step 1 - go to this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload


 * Step 2 - copy this text into the "Summary (author, source, URL, fair use rationale if applicable, extra tags, etc.):" section:

Publicity photo from the Three Stooges short subject INSERT TITLE HERE. Copyright Columbia Pictures, INSERT YEAR HERE. Used to illustrate film being described. Image is used under Non-free content rules on the basis of the following:
 * Significance
 * No free equivalent available
 * Respect for commercial opportunities
 * Minimal usage
 * Minimal extent of use
 * One-article minimum


 * Step 3 - go to "Source filename" and search for where you saved your picture.
 * Step 4 - go the "Licencing" drop-down box. I usually select "Movie Screenshot" or "TV screenshot."

You should be good. Let me know if you need anything else. Good luck. Oanabay04 (talk) 16:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Page titles
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to move Helter Shelter (Woody Woodpecker cartoon) by copying its content and pasting it into Helter Shelter (cartoon). This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is considered undesirable because it splits the page history which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other articles that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Cut and paste move repair holding pen. This is not the first time you have received this notice. Please ask for help if you are having trouble with the page move function. Thank you. Russ (talk) 18:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello - I used to cut and paste quite some time ago. I have not cut and pasted the Helter Shelter (Woody Woodpecker cartoon) article, nor have I made ANY edits to it since 13:50, 12 June 2008. I am fully aware how to move articles. I am showing that you conmpleted the move today; I am not sure what you talking about, as no cut an paste was done. I will also appreciate the discontinuance of threatening tones such as "This is not the first time you have received this notice." as this make working on wikipedia an unpleasant experience. Thank you.Oanabay04 (talk) 18:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry to have offended you. It is a tedious and time-consuming task to identify and tag these pages, so it makes my Wikipedia experience less pleasant, too.  --Russ (talk) 12:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Stones articles
hello Oanabay04 - thanks for the edits you've been making to various articles about the Rolling Stones. i wanted to explain why i redid some of your changes: when we're punctuating sentences with song titles in them, the wikipedia manual of style (and normal usage as well) requires punctuation to go *outside* the quotation marks (unless of course the punctuation is actually part of the title). you can read about that here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(titles) - that explanation is not as clear as it could be, but that is the correct way to do it. so for example we want
 * "Brown Sugar", "Angie", "Happy" and "Start Me Up" were all released as singles.

putting the commas inside the quotation marks is incorrect.

moving "Happy (the Rolling Stones song)" to "Happy (Rolling Stones song)" was an interesting decision - there are a lot of Stones songs that would need the same change, if there's a consensus on that. it was discussed briefly here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_The_Rolling_Stones#conventions_for_disambiguation but i wasn't aware that a consensus was reached. do you plan to change all the other articles that are currently disambiguated as "(The Rolling Stones song)" as well? Sssoul (talk) 18:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Moved image
Hi Oanabay04. I just wanted to inform you that I moved your very nice image Image:Places.jpg to a better, less generic name, to avoid that others upload other images over it in the future: Image:Places in the Heart (1984), poster.jpg. I have updated the link to it in the article. No action needed from you.

--David Göthberg (talk) 21:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Punctuation goes outside quotation marks
To save you (and the rest of us who must revert your edits) some time, here's a friendly notice about Wikipedia's manual of style. Unlike some other manuals of style, WP:PUNC requires that punctuation should go outside of the quotation marks unless the punctuation itself is being quoted. Possibly a minor issue, but one that shouldn't require needless editing if you know about it. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 02:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I just read the [[WP:PUNC] and must say, I am appalled at the breathtaking audacity Wikipedia has for essentially rewriting the proper American English punctuation. Every single professional publication follows the rules of punctuation and places punctuation outside of quotation marks wheb appropriate. Who in God's name decided to "make up their own rules"? I must say, Wikipedia's days are indeed numbered if they choose not to follow long-established protocol. I am not faulting you, Ward3001.
 * I understand that you're not faulting me. And I understand your frustration. But actually I tend to agree with Wikipedia in this case because it reduces confusion about whether the punctuation is part of the quotation. I have seen this method used elsewhere, although it certainly isn't in the majority. Like I said, it's a minor point in my opinion, but I saw no need for you to make changes that eventually would be reverted. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 23:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

In praise of your Woody Woodpecker contributions

 * Why thank you! That laugh is the highest form of praise. I am just putting the stub articles in place. I will be adding to them over time, and I hope others will feel free to augment the articles as well. Oanabay04 (talk) 18:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It is my pleasure. I love Woody Woodpecker and the Walter Lantz canon. Keep up the fine work! Ecoleetage (talk) 18:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Pink Panther

 * Is there any real reason that you're set on having a large number of useless stubs? I don't know if it is impossible for all Pink Panther cartoons to have articles, but in the very least, the grand majority do not need much coverage. It would be much better if you were to work solely on the episode list, and try to format it after our featured episode lists. The articles can function as redirects instead of acting as perma-stubs. TTN (talk) 21:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I am just putting the stub articles in place. I will be adding to them over time, and I hope others will feel free to augment the articles as well. I did this with the Three Stooges and Woody Woodpecker, to great success.
 * Are you familiar with the notability guideline? If not, I suggest that you read over it. You've been around for a while, so I would assume so, but looking at over fifty of your articles, I cannot see one that even asserts notability. Articles on pieces of fiction and fictional topics require information showing that they are relevant past the main work to require articles. Episode articles are generally placed within lists until such information is shown to exist. I'm guessing that some of them can possibly establish notability, but it seems doubtful for the majority. TTN (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi - yes, I am familiar with the notability guideline. Do not worry; the articles will have information that they are relevant past the main work to require articles. It is just easier to create stub articles as it stirs interest and gives them exposure. In particular, please look through several Three Stooges entries. This will give you an idea what is in store.Oanabay04 (talk) 21:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you point out any article out of your three main series that has established notability? I've looked through a number of the Stooges shorts, and I have yet to see anything beyond minor production notes. While it is often very easy to think that a topic can establish notability, that is not always the case. We have and have had various television series where a number of people believe that all episodes of the series are all set (the only case where that is actually happened is with The Simpsons), so a large number of episode articles have been merged, redirected, and deleted over time. If you were to work on episode lists instead, you could build a featured list, and at the same time, accomplish your goal by having the summaries set up neatly. If anyone provides information, they can easily be split out of the list and develop into an article. TTN (talk)


 * (outdent) You still have only primary sources in In the Pink of the Night. You have the DePatie-Freleng website website, a book written by relatives of Freleng, and the DVD. None are independent of the subject.-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  17:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we got it. This should more than suffice. If it does not, please let me know.Oanabay04 (talk) 17:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We're making progress, because at least these are independent. *grin* What's needed is something that is not a directory listing (IMDb and tv.com are directory listings), not a sales site (toptenreviews is basically selling the DVD), and that shows how the episode made an impact on the real world. For what that means, you might take a look at a couple of featured articles. The Abyssinia,_Henry section or A_Streetcar_Named_Marge might be good models. HTH.-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  17:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I can safely say that if this were the case, then thousands of articles about films/shows that are part of a series would be deleted in a heartbeat. Some films are simply part of an assembly line. Plus, when I think "reception," i think "opinion." I will try to dig up some signifigance on some of these.Oanabay04 (talk) 19:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thousands do get deleted at AfD, and thousands more get turned into redirects. If you want the article to have a chance of sticking around, then showing the real world significance is the way to go.-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  19:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That is definitely why I suggest working on three featured lists instead. It would be much more beneficial, and if any of the shorts do assert notability, they can be split back out at any time. TTN (talk) 20:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There is something worth mentioning here. The Wikipedia:Television episodes is incorrectly applied to these Pink Panther articles. These are not television episodes; they are theatrical films that later were aired on television. Either remove the tag or replace it with a generic notability tag. Thanx!Oanabay04 (talk) 21:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Even though notability hasn't been shown, there's currently no notability tag on the article.-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  22:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you please actually show how any of these can be considered notable at this point? You've just dodged the question so far. All you need to do is get one of them up to good article status, and that would probably be good enough to allow for improvement. TTN (talk) 22:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I did answer the question. All the articles are notable in that they are part of a notable series of films. Some are more notable than others. As each article is developed, they will become more improved, detailed. nonw are as "notable" as Gone With the Wind" or "The Music Box," with the exception of operhaps The Pink Phink''. I am not sure why this is even being discussed. i have added hundreds of articles for films that are part of a series, and at no time was their "nobility" questioned. In fact, some were championed. Oanabay04 (talk) 19:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Being part of a notable topic is not an indication of notability. Each article must establish its own notability and importance by including real world information from reliable sources. See the episodes in Featured articles for examples. You have not shown any improvement on any of these, so the claim that they will be improved holds no weight at all. We have millions of articles, so it is quite easy for a few hundred to be overlooked, especially stubs in a minor category. You need to actually work on them, not just state that you will. TTN (talk) 18:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My claim holds plently of weight if you took the time to look through articles I have worked long hours on. I have not shown any improvement to the Pink Pantherss because I just added these in last three days. If you took the time to look through my other contributions in the categories I have referenced, you will see that stub articles have grown over time. Monkey Businessmen, Three Little Pirates, Scheming Schemers, A Snitch in Time - all grew out of stubs. Correct me, but I believe wikipedia is an online encylopedia. Encyclopedias are reference books that have articles that can be one sentence. If you are so dead set against an article being added that is not added in completed form, soup to nuts, then let's start tagging about 80% of wikipedia.Oanabay04 (talk) 18:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * None of those are decent articles, and they're all still stubs with no real content. The first two have decent production information, but it seems like it would be fine to place in the history section of the main article if they cannot be improved. You need information as shown in our featured and good episode articles, which includes development, critical reception, controversy, popular culture, and other real world ideas. Over 99% of the articles on this site have various problems, but that is no reason to ignore a small group like this. Again, I really suggest working on featured lists, so that something of quality is guaranteed to be developed. TTN (talk) 19:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oanabay, TTN is right, those episode articles should not have been created (yet). The general notability guideline is pretty clear, you must have "significant coverage from third-party sources independent of the subject". There is currently a proposal for a more specific guideline on fiction, but even that would not support the creation of all of these articles. An episode list should (have been)be your first instinct when creating articles dealing with a TV show's episodes. First, it allows you to have a central location where you can chronicle all of the vital information for each of the episodes. Then, if a particular episode stands out (per the notability requirements) then it can be separated by itself and developed as a distinct article on that episode. Having articles that are nothing but plots is against one of our core policies; it also violates another one of our guidelines, the guideline for writing about fiction. By mass creating episode articles that fails all of these guidelines and policies, you are unintentionally undermining the spirit what it means to warrant having an article on Wikipedia. I implore you to redirect those episode titles to a centralized list, and work to develop that first (I will even help you if you need assistance in creating a viable list article that could easily become a featured list). Then I would search for resources to establish notability on any episode that might have been particularly noteworthy. Source searching should always be the first step, not the last.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  19:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Points well taken.FYI, TTN, "None of those are decent articles" is rather accusatory and patronizing. As an editor and not a writer, your claim holds no weight at all. "Oanabay04 (talk) 19:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I apologize if I have offended you, but you need to understand that these are not developed articles and that there is a chance that none of them will ever develop. There may or may not be few potential featured or good articles within them, but an assertion of notability is necessary to keep them around. Are you willing to redirect these at this point and attempt to create featured lists? TTN (talk) 19:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If that is what it takes to keep these articles around and prevent them from being deleted, then of course. My goal is not to create hard feelings but rather create a comprehensive and reliable source of information with co-wikipedians.Oanabay04 (talk) 20:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The articles themselves will have to be redirected in order for this to work, so they'll no longer exist in that sense. The edit history will still exist, so they can be brought back at any time that notability is established. If that is fine with you, you should redirect them to relevant sections of relevant lists and fill in the information using Template:Episode list. You can ask for help or use featured episode lists as guides if you need them. TTN (talk) 20:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Am I correct to assume that's a no on redirecting them to the list? TTN (talk) 22:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * no, I just have not started doing it yet. Have not had the time. Also, trying to decide should not be redirectedOanabay04 (talk) 14:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)