This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hello, TRLIJC19! I have a curiosity regarding Wishin' and Hopin' (Grey's Anatomy). When you edited the article, one of your edit summaries stated that the Reception section should not be subsectioned in "Ratings" and "Critical response"? Why is that? I have found four reviews for the episode, which is plenty for "critical response", and I believe it wouldn't be appropriate to mix them with the ratings. What do you think? Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 10:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
By the way, I have developed the "Reception" susection for one review. Instill have three others that I am going to include in the section. After you write the plot, I will be able to nominate for GA. Looking forward to it! Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 13:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Please see how I stylized it at I Like You So Much Better When You're Naked. As I said, all WP:Greys pages should be standardized. It's not that I don't think you have enough info for critical, but one subsection about ratings detracts from the readability. The reception section should have one paragraph for ratings, then as much as you want for critics in paragraphs below. It should not be subheaded. And I'll try to get plot done ASAP. TRLIJC19 (talk) 14:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
After thoroughly reviewing this article, I have concluded that it meets the good article criteria, so I passed it. Congratulations and keep up the good work! And I hope my reviewing was satisfactory! — M.Mario (T/C) 21:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the very thorough review! TRLIJC19 (talk) 23:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Grey's Anotomy FA
I'm here to confirm that I will review the Meredith Grey article soon, and I have a quick tip for the Grey's Anotomy article: remove the Internet Movie Database sources. That is a bad source for Wikipedia, and doesn't meet WP:GNG. Thanks for your time here. TBrandley 04:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your concern with the article, but under some circumstances, IMDb sources are permitted. I have been unable to find another reference to back up the production team, but if I can, I'll definitely replace it. Thanks, TRLIJC19 (talk) 04:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Update: I've found replacement info, eliminating all IMDb references. TRLIJC19 (talk) 07:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello! The reviewer for Wishin' and Hopin' (Grey's Anatomy)'s GA nomination put the article on hold, and is not going to pass it until I remove the image displaying Meredith and Ellis, or I expand its rationale. I don't know what to "expand a rationale" means. Could you, please, do it for me? Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 19:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll search for critical reviews as soon as I address the issues for Wishin' and Hopin'. Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 19:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Please take a look at this page: since you're the only one who's done anything like a full review, even as a second opinion, with the original reviewer unlikely to do anything more, if you want to take it over I imagine it's yours for the taking. If you don't, though, I'll put it back into the reviewing pool; nominator DAP388 has asked for a new reviewer, and deserves a full, timely review. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I'll gladly do a full review. I'm out right now, but when I get home I'll do it. Thanks for notifying me, TRLIJC19 (talk) 21:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for being willing to take this on. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
The Other Side of This Life
Hello, TRLIJC19! I did some "research" on the topic we discussed a few days ago. According to ABC.com and the series producers (Grey Matter), "The Other Side of This Life" is one episode, that aired among two hours (just like Pilot (Fringe), who is also considered one episode, even if it has double-length, bur unlike "Good Mourning" and "Goodbye", which were distinct episodes that aired in the same night). Please see: [1] and [2]. Again, I don't want this to develop into an argument, as I respect your opinion very much. I believe that this "conflicts" are a way to improve Wikipedia. :) Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 10:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Please see ABC.com for season six. It also shows that there were 22 episodes, but 24 aired according to primetime television those nights. The writers and network group the nights, but we must be consistent with the fact that season three had 25 episodes, not 24. So, it is best to create 2 articles. Cheers, TRLIJC19 (talk) 17:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I see. We should leave it as it is, then. Thank you for familiarizing me with this aspect. Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 19:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Also, when you add a good article to the WikiProject page; be sure to use the correct date :) TRLIJC19 (talk) 19:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
A cupcake for you!
Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my user page ;-) Sofffie7 (talk) 16:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Haha no problem :) It's been happening a lot! TRLIJC19 (talk) 17:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Oh! Lol, thanks again for the barnstar! TRLIJC19 (talk) 19:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Sadie Harris
Hey! I added more stuff on Sadie Harris for the casting/creation section. Could you take a look and improve what I did, if necessary? For example, I randomly put one of 2 quotes (where she explains the casting process and her first day on the set of GA) in a quotebox and not both because it would maybe be too much, but I can't decide which one really 'deserves' a quotebox... George also talks about the sexuality of her character in the Sydney Morning Herald article , which part do you think is noteworthy? --Sofffie7 (talk) 20:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Hey! I'll look through shortly; I'm currently working on Invasion (Grey's Anatomy). Thanks for expanding :) TRLIJC19 (talk) 20:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
OK thanks :-) Take your time, there's no hurry. --Sofffie7 (talk) 20:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
?
I was wondering, how do you nominate an article for A-Class. Thanks. TBrandley 00:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Copyeditors
I do not have any copyeditors in mind - you can see all nominators of FAs at WP:WBFAN. I think I already mentioned WP:GOCE and the copyeditor section at WP:PR/V. SOrry not to be of more help, Ruhrfisch><>°° 03:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions! TRLIJC19 (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Request
I was wondering if you could GA review The Little Guy. Thanks, TBrandley 21:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi, TRLIJC9 on the barnstar, and your support at the FAC is greatly appreciated! I'd love to give a copyedit to Grey's Anatomy, used to watch it, but I don't think I'm the best guy for it: Usually, the issues at my GAN/FACs is the prose... :) -Will try to help in any other way though. Thanks again and all the best, --Khanassassin☪ 10:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for offering to help! I think I found a copyeditor, but he can't start until the 18th :( I'm just so anxious to take it to FAC! TRLIJC19 (talk) 17:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
FAC
Thank you for taking your time to add comments to the FAC page for Awake. I'd like to make a few notes: for Conception and Writing, could you be more specific when saying "lots of quotes". For "Say Hello to My Little Friend", it was considered the best episode by other critics also, which I have referenced (IGN, The A.V. Club). I haven't added a comma after Although, because it doesn't need to pause there. Other than that all other issues have been addressed and fixed. Thanks again! TBrandley 15:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I've responded and left further issues at the review page. TRLIJC19 (talk) 17:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Questions =)
Hey TRLIJC19! I was wondering, why are you focusing on making the episodes of Grey's sixth season GA? I know it's because you'd like the sixth season to be a good topic but why this season in particular and not the first one, for example? You may think it's a weird question but I was very curious ;-). Also, have you had the time the last few days to take a look on Sadie Harris and the edits I made or did you forget :P ? I was surprised when I first saw there was a age about her because she did not stay for a long time on the show and I also wondered why her page was on your June to-do-list next to Torres, Robbins and Hunt/why you wanted her page to be developed first and not the "main" characters remaining like Derek, Alex or Cristina... Kinds regards, Sofffie7 (talk) 20:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Hey Sofffie7! I was actually going to do the first season, but the Grey Matter writers' blog was not established then, so it would be hard locating production information on each episode. Also, I could have done 2, 3, or 4, but the sixth season's main page was not already a GA like 2, 3, and 4, and I wanted to develop a season article to GA. I totally forgot to take a look at Sadie's page, but I'll get to it today. Also, the reason I chose her, Hunt, Robbins, Torres, etc. is because their pages were already in "decent" condition, whereas Cristina's, Derek's, and Alex's pages are in horrible conditions. If you look at my To-do list for July, I plan on pushing Derek and Cristina to GA. I hope that addressed all your questions :) TRLIJC19 (talk) 20:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes you did, thanks for the answers ;-) Sofffie7 (talk) 20:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Invasion
Hi Trlijc19. I have done a pretty thorough review of the article for you and left some comments at the review page. I think it has improved out of sight from my first read through and many of the points I made are minor or simply aimed at helping you improve your writing style. One thing I have noticed (and it is reasonably common to other editors articles) is the habit of joining unrelated clauses in a sentence with an "and". I think it is a symptom of editors trying to squeeze too much information into a single sentence. I am not a grammar expert, but know enough to say that this is not the best way to present information. You would be much better off having these as separate sentences or finding another way to tie them together. See this for an example. Anyway, thanks for not just accepting the pass and trying to improve the article. AIRcorn(talk) 15:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks again, I'll address the concerns as soon as I can! TRLIJC19 (talk) 15:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Just a note
Thanks for reviewing Awake for FA. However, instead of crossing out the fixed issues, consider using this template for the issues that have been addressed:
Resolved comments from TRLIJC19 (talk) 06:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi there! I was wondering if you would be willing to support the above list at its FLC, as I have taken care of the "award-winning" issue you have adressed. :) All the best, --Khanassassin☪ 15:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I'll take another look, thanks for the notification! TRLIJC19 (talk) 16:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Newsletters
Hey there, I was just wondering why members of the WikiProject Grey's Anatomy aren't receiving weekly newsletters anymore. I liked them! They encouraged me to work with Grey's. Anyway, no big whoop. PS: Do you have another name I can call you besides TRLIJC19? Creativity97(Talk) 16:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Hey! The newsletters will begin again tomorrow! I just couldn't find the time to do them the last two weeks! I'm glad you enjoy them! Oh, and you can call me Joey! TRLIJC19 (talk) 16:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Great thanks! I just got it now. Okay, I'll call you Joey from now on. Creativity97(Talk) 13:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi!
Just like to remind you that it has been a few days since you declared yourself reviewer for "The Little Guy". Thanks! TBrandley 02:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I completely forgot! I'll get started right away! Also, there are only two outstanding concerns from me at Awake's FAC (the paraphrasing); once those are addressed, I will be willing to offer my opinion on whether or not it meets the criteria. TRLIJC19 (talk) 02:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm having troubles fixing your two concerns. I don't know exactly where, or what to fix. If you could help that'd be great. Thanks again! TBrandley 02:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Paraphrasing is just changing quotes into your own words. For example (made up): Quote- "The style I was looking for when I created the television show was a bit of comedy, heartbreak, and intensity. Paraphrase- While developing the series, the creator intended it to a mixture of "comedy, heartbreak, and intensity". -- The point of this is so the reader isn't just reading quotes. Get it? TRLIJC19 (talk) 02:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, "The Little Guy" is being copy-edited right now by Davejohnsan, who has said not to edit the article for 30 minutes. TBrandley 15:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello members of WikiProject Grey's Anatomy! We are sending out our weekly newsletter with updates about the project and tasks. Big apologies for the lack of the newsletter for the past two weeks! We have lots of new achievements and updates to be announced! We have fifteen new good articles! This is a great achievement for the project. The articles that were promoted are Lexie Grey, which was developed by TRLIJC19 and Sofffie7, Owen Hunt, which was developed by TRLIJC19, "I Like You So Much Better When You're Naked", which was created and developed by TRLIJC19, Grey's Anatomy (season 6), which was developed by TRLIJC19, "Good Mourning", which was created and developed by TRLIJC19, Callie Torres, which was developed by TRLIJC19, Meredith Grey, which was developed by TRLIJC19, "Great Expectations", which was created and developed by Jonathan Harold Koszeghi, "I Always Feel Like Somebody's Watchin' Me", which was created and developed by TRLIJC19 (previously a DYK), "Goodbye", which was created and developed by TRLIJC19, "Time Has Come Today", which was created and developed by Jonathan Harold Koszeghi, "Time Has Come Today", which was created and developed by Jonathan Harold Koszeghi, "Wishin' and Hopin'", which was created and developed by Jonathan Harold Koszeghi, Arizona Robbins, which was developed by TRLIJC19, "Tainted Obligation", which was created and developed by TRLIJC19, and "Invasion", which was created and developed by TRLIJC19.
Sadie Harris is being developed by Sofffie7 and TRLIJC19, and should be nominated for GA soon. Grey's Anatomy and Grey's Anatomy (season 3) are in the preparations for FAC. There are many things to be done for the project, in an attempt to exemplify its best work. Below is a list of tasks, and guidelines:
Tasks and Gudelines
*Character Pages
Ensure that each character page has this section order:
Shorten character storylines, using {{Cite episode}} to reference episodes, and break down season sub-section headers into just one section, "Storylines".
Keep an eye out for vandalism, as that tends to occur at that page.
General
Many users and IPs have been erasing "surgical resident" from fifth year residents characters' occupations in infoboxes and at List of Grey's Anatomy characters. This should all be held off until more info is given on their current occupation in the season premiere. Revert if you see this, and if it's persistent; warn users.
Some IPs/Users have been changing Lexie Grey's article as well as Callie Torres, going against MOS. Revert if you see this, and try to explain to the IP/User why this is wrong.
Weekly Initiative!
The weekly initiative this week is to develop a character article to GA quality, using the character guidelines above! Model your article off of a Grey's Anatomy character's page with GA status. Do it fast, because we are close to having all character articles at GA! Search the internet for casting/creation, characterization and reception information (a lot is given at the Grey Matter writers' blog), condense storylines, and try to get the article to GA quality (using MOS and Wikipedia guidelines), then nominate it. Barnstars will be awarded to users who develop their articles to GA quality! Also, use the templates listed at the project page to recruit new members, the more the merrier! Take part in these initiatives, have fun developing an article to GA, feel proud after the article you developed reaches GA, and be rewarded with barnstars! Help make a difference and get started! Furthermore, if you notice that any user has participated in any weekly initiative and was not rewarded, give them a barnstar ASAP!
Have fun and don't forget to cite everything you write! We hope to see several new character GAs, and new members, soon!
--The community of WikiProject Grey's Anatomy (Written by newsletter coordinator TRLIJC19)
Awake FA
I have rephrased the "Conception" section on Awake (TV series). I am still working on the "Writing" section. Other than that, do you think it meets criteria. Thanks, TBrandley 20:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I plan on reading through the entire article again, after the paraphrasing is complete, to check for minor inconsistencies. But as of now, the article is looking good. TRLIJC19 (talk) 20:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I have re-phased the "Writing" section. I rephrased what I could, if I need to re-phrased even more, let me know. Think it is ready. Cheers! TBrandley 20:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm reading through it now, and listing final comments. TRLIJC19 (talk) 04:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for you time. I have addressed and fixed all the new concerns/issues. TBrandley 14:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry about not fixing Must of not pressed the save button properly. Sorry again.--TBrandley 18:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Aren't we all sometimes? Lol, I'm going to confirm that they have been addressed now. TRLIJC19 (talk) 05:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Emmy noms
Hey! Sorry to break into your conversation with Jonathan but I saw what you wrote and I wanted to share my thoughts ^^ . I also think it's too bad Sandra Oh didn't get a nod because I think she deserved it so much! This year, as you know, Cristina had complications in her marriage and Oh's performance was really good. Ellen Pompeo was not bad either at the beginning of the season when Zola was taken away from her/when Derek was mad at her or that are considered too 'popular'... What about Chandra Wilson and Sara Ramirez, and for the men, Kevin McKidd??? =( As for Best Series, I'm not sure Grey's would have deserved it. Anyway, in my mind, it's always the same shows that are lauded (Mad Men, The Good Wife, Downtown Abbey,...) =/ Sadly, TV shows that don't have a big audience are rarely recognized. When it aired, Friday Night Lights did not receive major Emmys -except for its final season- neither did Gilmore Girls with a great Lauren Graham. This year, I was hoping Parenthood, which is from the same showrunner as FNL, would get several nods but it is only nominated for Guest Actor. Do you know these shows? What are the other TV shows that you like besides Grey's? ;-)
Oh and poor Hugh Laurie; nothing for his final year on House... Sofffie7 (talk) 19:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Hey Sofffie! It is a bit annoying that shows like Mad Men, even though I like it, (with an average 2 million per episode) get nominations but shows like Grey's with an average 12 million per episode get nothing! I like Private Practice, Mad Men, and The Voice (got a nomination :)). I'll watch anything that's good! TRLIJC19 (talk) 20:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
OH!! And what about Chyler Leigh in her speech to Mark? She was excellent there! Definitely emmy deserving; and then we would have had more material to add to reception on her ;) TRLIJC19 (talk) 20:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I've never watched Mad Men actually... I like Private Practice too but I don't follow it on a regular basis and I watch the version of The Voice airing in my country lol. Yeah Chyler Leigh's speech was really moving; maybe the best performance in that last episode with Eric Dane's. --Sofffie7 (talk) 21:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)<
Oh you don't live in the US? That explains why we're usually online at different times. TRLIJC19 (talk) 21:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
"The Little Guy"
I have fixed your concerns on the new GAN page for "The Little Guy". The article has gotten a copy-edit, and I have trimmed the "Plot" section, and fixed up the "Lede". Do you think it is ready for another GA review? Thanks! (p.s.: If it is, I was wondering if you'd be able to review it. Don't have to if you don't want to. Anyway, thanks again!) TBrandley 22:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I think it would be best for another user to review, not because I don't want to, but because it is usually frowned upon when a user reviews the same article twice. TRLIJC19 (talk) 23:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Makes sense. Thanks for replying. TBrandley 23:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
[3] This flags the article into Category:ArticleHistory_error. Please stop doing this. It would have been appropriate for you to ping me before undoing my fix twice. Gimmetoo (talk) 03:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
How about instead of screaming in your edit summary, you make a note on my page explaining this. It would have been appropriate for you to explain it since you originally made the edit. It's not a big deal, and I'm glad it's fixed. TRLIJC19 (talk) 03:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
The error category is evident among the categories [4], and I did note the issue the second time around. I didn't expect it to be undone again after that. Gimmetoo (talk) 03:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Well it's fixed now, so thanks for being a help. TRLIJC19 (talk) 04:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Flight
Hey! Good work on "Flight"; I'm impressed by the way you improved it. I thought earlier it was near to be good but obviously there are points that I still miss ;-) By the way, who's James LeGros? I just rewatched the episode before seeing your edits and I don't remember him! --Sofffie7 (talk) 23:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
The pilot!! Lol, TRLIJC19 (talk) 23:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Haha OK, thanks. I rewinded and saw his face :P --Sofffie7 (talk) 23:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
The article's looking good! Nominate it for GA (and maybe list me as the co nominator ;)) Lol, TRLIJC19 (talk) 23:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
OK, I'll do that later :) but is it possible to re-add in the lead that Chyler Leigh's performance was praised along Pompeo's and Dane's? I wasn't sastisfied with the sentence I wrote earlier but I think those 3 names should mentioned... --Sofffie7 (talk) 00:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I didn't notice I cut it out ;) TRLIJC19 (talk) 00:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Added back in! Try to nominate ASAP so I can include the nomination in this week's newsletter :) TRLIJC19 (talk) 00:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Done! We now only have to await the review! I don't know what time it is for you, but here it's already 3:24 AM so I'm going to bed =) --Sofffie7 (talk) 01:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Oh my, God! It's only 9:25pm here! Night, TRLIJC19 (talk) 01:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, usually I don't stay up so late but I had to finish watching the season 7 of Bones... --Sofffie7 (talk) 01:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Hey there, I saw your paraphrased the 'production' section, which is good, but why did you wrote "Rhimes elaborated that Raver was offered a contract renewal, but declined" ? Because when I read the part on Kim Raver's departure in the Digital Spy article, it looks like there was nothing more to tell on Teddy and Raver agreed. --Sofffie7 (talk) 12:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Hey! I paraphrased only because the reviewer said to. Feel free to replace 'elaborated'; I just couldn't think of a word. TRLIJC19 (talk) 16:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
No, what I meant is how did you think Raver was offered a contract renewal? Because in the article, there's no mention of that... Otherwise I think paraphrasing is good; it's just that I don't do that often because I'm not sure it's well done or I'm too lazy ^^ . --Sofffie7 (talk) 18:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Rhimes said "Kim's series option was up and she was ready to give Teddy Altman a much-needed vacation." -- Meaning that Kim's contract expired, and she was offered a new one (as displayed by Rhimes saying 'option'), and she declined (Raver was ready to give Teddy a vacation). TRLIJC19 (talk) 18:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Dr. Banks
Dr. Banks has been nominated for deletion. Do you think it should be deleted? Thank you. TBrandley 23:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but yes. The development section literally tells who plays the character, probably because there is no other information available. The reception section is terribly short, probably due to lack of media coverage for the character. I honestly can't believe this is a GAN. It is rare that enough significant coverage is given to a recurring character for the article to meet the GNG. This series only ran for one season, so that is probably why no coverage is available for the article. Examples of recurring characters with significant coverage are Sadie Harris (who was on a show that is in its 9th season), and Michael Tritter (who was on a show that aired 8 seasons). I recommend working on some Britten characters, as there may be enough info to develop them to GA. TRLIJC19 (talk) 00:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Ok. I'll put it in my sandbox, because I do plan on creating a List of Awake characters. Could it maybe be merged into that? TBrandley 00:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I think List of Awake characters is a well-needed article that could include all characters (main and recurring). TRLIJC19 (talk) 00:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
And another FL chance. Thanks for your comments! TBrandley 00:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, another FL is always good :) Also, are you reviewing Sadie Harris tonight? TRLIJC19 (talk) 00:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I was planning on reviewing it tommorow. But if its a priority, I can get it done today. TBrandley 00:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Well I'm just bored so if you review it tonight, it will give me something to do. But I understand if you can't get it done today. TRLIJC19 (talk) 00:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
No, I get to to it right now. Good luck! TBrandley 00:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! Also, there's a user who wants to change the infobox logo at Awake (TV series) to the title screen, and put the logo at the List of episodes. I personally disagree, so maybe you could give your opinion at Talk:Awake (TV series)#Logo. TRLIJC19 (talk) 00:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with you. Have left a comment. He is also arguing that there should be a family tree on Britten family. Don't know about that. TBrandley 00:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
If you could make the tree look attractive then perhaps it might be worth inclusion. Maybe play around with coding for it in your sandbox. TRLIJC19 (talk) 00:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
How can you get a bot to archive content on the Awake (TV series) after seven days. Thanks! TBrandley 01:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Done, I've added the bot configuration to the page. TRLIJC19 (talk) 01:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I think we should report that editor that is making bad edits, and stuff to the Awake talk page. Opinions? TBrandley 01:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
If they go against consensus, and change the image then yes. Otherwise, even though it can be hard to, we should try to assume good faith. TRLIJC19 (talk) 01:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree. TBrandley 01:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
In other news, more issues have been added to the Sadie Harris GAN page. TBrandley 02:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I'll address those soon. I believe we can say that good faith has been lost for this user; I opened up a discussion at the administrator's noticeboard about the user's disruptive behavior. TRLIJC19 (talk) 02:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Makes complete sense. Thanks for your help, you didn't have to did this. Thanks again! TBrandley 02:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Note that you should notify the user involved next time. I did this time. Thank you. TBrandley 02:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I already notified her/him on the Awake talk page. TRLIJC19 (talk) 02:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Just meant for their actual talk page. No big deal. Thanks again. TBrandley 02:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
That's not necessary; I know how to start an ANI. TRLIJC19 (talk) 02:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry if that sounded mean (I'm heated from this discussion at the talk page for Awake). Also, don't use rollback to revert the new section being made, as rollback should be used for clear violations of vandalism only, and you could risk getting the userright taken away from you. TRLIJC19 (talk) 02:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I understand how you feel, I'm like that myself sometimes, and figured that. For rollback, okay, I'm still new to rollback. Cheers! TBrandley 02:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
You have helped me so much. Too much to name them all. Thank you so much! TBrandley 03:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
No problem :) Hopefully this user is dealt with (she/he just verbally attacked me, lol). TRLIJC19 (talk) 03:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Bert Bell
I dont know why you sent me a message. But stay away from the Bert Bell article please. Thanks in advance. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 03:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I was sending you a message because you improperly used the 'minor edits' button for edits that were not minor. Asking me to stay away from an article constitutes WP:OWN, which is not tolerated. Furthermore, I don't know who/what Bert Bell is, so what does your improper usage of minor edits have to do with a random article? Either way, it was a notice, and it's no big deal. Have a nice day, TRLIJC19 (talk) 04:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I honestly don't know what article you are complaining about me incorrectly using the minor edit flag. I have been working on the Bert Bell article for darn near 2 years and I have someone nice enough to do a peer review of the article. All my attention and focus is on that article. You have just interrupted my train of thought over some mickey mouse concern about, what, some mickey mouse article. Respectfully, how about doing a little research and stop spitting out your mickey mouse concerns. How about spending 8 seconds and looking at my contribs and seeing if I am in the middle of something. I've spent darn near 2 years on Bert Bell and you gotta whack me cause you can't spend 3-8 seconds on my contribs. Please leave me alone. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 04:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
All I did was post a notice. Also, read WP:CIVIL, you are getting way too heated over something so simple. Feel free to ignore it and return to work. TRLIJC19 (talk) 04:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi! I'm currently on vacation, but I'll take a good look at the article on Monday. I just glanced through it, and it seems pretty good. :) TRLIJC19 (talk) 03:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Congrats! Enjoy your vacation :) TBrandley 03:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! Also, just wondering, do you watch Grey's Anatomy? TRLIJC19 (talk) 03:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
On my watchlist? Yeah, I do, why? TBrandley 03:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
No! Lol, I meant do you watch the show on television. TRLIJC19 (talk) 04:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Oh, LOL. No, don't really like medical drama-type shows. I know, you are going to think I'm crazy. LOL :) TBrandley 04:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Haha, start watching in season nine! It's so good! TRLIJC19 (talk) 04:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I'll give it a try. If so, I can help edit some episode articles if you want. TBrandley 04:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
That would be great! There's so many, and it's so difficult to create/develop all of them. Jonathan Harold Koszeghi used to help out a lot, but he's been inactive recently. Sofffie7's good too. Also, do you want to join WikiProject Grey's Anatomy? We could use some more members! TRLIJC19 (talk) 04:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I joined; might as well. I edit the articles in the WikiProject quite a lot. Thanks! TBrandley 04:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Great! You'll now receive our weekly newsletters. You can see the previous ones here! Well it's been nice talking! I planned on developing a few articles while on vacation, but the mini Wikibreak has been nice, so I think I'll be away from Wikipedia until my return on Monday. Can you keep an eye on the Grey's Anatomy articles while I'm gone? :-) TRLIJC19 (talk) 04:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello! I am back from my vacation, and ready to start my regular editing. In regard to the article above, I wanted to let you know that I am NOT going to nominate it for FA any time soon. It requires a lot of work, and I have numerous ideas for improvement. Currently, my plan is to develop the article, in accordance to the following tasks I have highlighted:
References: A lot of work has to be done for the citations. I have to add publishers, works, authors, dates for every one of them, as I was not aware of those when I wrote the article.
Reception: I am planning a major development for this section. I have found several other sources for reviews, with mixed perspectives on performances and storylines.
Episode summaries: I am going to need your help with this. I would be truly appreciative if you could expand the episode summaries to 5-6 paragraphs.
Home video release: I am also planning an expansion of the section, based on more available reviews for the box set release.
The article also requires heavy copy-editing. I will spend all my time working on this article, so that it meets the criteria. I want it to be in perfect shape when nominating, with all available information included (obviously, filtered). I don't think I am going to focus on the episode articles until I finish my work on the third season. I'm looking forward to prove my abilities as a Wikipedia editor. Cheers, Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 11:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I will try to reply to everything you said the best I can.
References: I think I noted that the references needed cleanup on your talk page. There is a large inconsistency with publishers/works (ie. It alternates between "ABCMediaNet.com" and "Medianet. American Broadcasting Company."; which is what it should be. For inspiration on how to clean up the references, see Grey's Anatomy, as all the references are in consistent shape there. If you have any questions on them, feel free to ask me. Also, a major problem is the IMDb references in the crew section, which I noted on your talk page. IMDb is generally outdated and sometimes incorrect, which is why it should not be used per WP:IMDB. I was only temporarily using it at Grey's Anatomy (which is where I assume you found the webpage), and it is now all replaced with reliable sources. If this reference is not replaced quickly, the article risks being delisted as a GA, which furthers its chances of becoming a FA.
Reception: I wouldn't add too much information to the reception. It is already really big, and too much information might leer it off topic. Try to find general seasonal reviews (even though it's hard) if you do add anything else, or reviews that talk about the plots/characters in general, not just particular episodes.
Yes, that is exactly my plan. I have found trustworthy reviews, that refer to the overall season, not particular episodes. I might remove some overdetailed info from the current version of the section, but I also plan a development that balances the reviews (negative reviews and positive reviews, but with an emphasis on the negative ones, which have been highlighted by many critics). Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 12:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Episode summaries: About the episode summaries, they need clean-up, but 5-6 paragraphs per episode is ridiculous. I'm assuming you mean lines, lol (which is still too much). Take a look at Parks and Recreation (season 1), it's a featured season article, and the episode summaries have 4 lines per episode at the most. 5-6 is way too much, as that section is supposed to summarize the season, not contain an over-detailed plot synopsis of it. Are you familiar with the summary style editing guideline? It states "A fuller treatment of any major subtopic should go in a separate article of its own. The original article should contain a section with a summary of the subtopic's article as well as a link to it." A good example of how this rule is generally applied is Grey's Anatomy#Private Practice and Grey's Anatomy#Music event. Those sections summarize a topic with an article on the main topic existent. That is why you use the {{main}} template. Episode lists should follow this, but in a different way. The goal is to have an article for all notable episodes, so the list should just briefly summarize the episode with a link to the episode's article (if existent).
I must have mistaken. Yes, what I meant was 5-6 lines. But I definitely see your points. My plan is to have all episode summaries with the same number of lines. If the number is to be 4, I most certainly agree. I would be extremely grateful if you could rewrite the episode summaries. Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 12:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Crew: This doesn't have to do with the episode summaries, but it is about overdetailing: the crew section is ridiculously long, and is full of unnecessary BS that a reader doesn't care about. For example, "additional foley artist" is a crew title that is unnecessary to include. See the crew section at Parks and Recreation (season 1); it is only two small paragraphs consisting of general crew titles such as producers and writers. Even Grey's Anatomy's crew section isn't as detailed as this. Also, a large part of what's making this section so long is that you frequently say things such as "After having written three episodes for the first season and five for the second", which is irrelevant to the third season. I think the second two paragraphs should be axed. Also, the pic of Tony Goldwyn is so irrelevant, since he didn't work for the show this season.
I understand. I will remove the last two paragraphs, and the photo. Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 12:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Home video release: In regard to the home video section, that should not be expanded. Again, see Parks and Recreation (season 1); their DVD release section is only two lines. I think one review is enough for a DVD section. Also, I notice you use 'currently' in that section. That word should be avoided, because it gets outdated quickly, and it is better to use {{asof}}.
Copyediting: This article's prose is not too problematic, and a good copyedit by a credible editor should do the trick. Also, as I've said; this needs a shift from first name usage to last name usage.
I do agree this article needs work, but you are headed in the wrong direction by wanting to add more to the article, when what it needs is removal of unnecessary detail. There is comprehensiveness (the goal), and then there is unnecessary BS/fluff. Let me know if you understand all of this, TRLIJC19 (talk) 20:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Awake task force
If you would like to join the Awake task force, please let me know. Thanks! TBrandley 15:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
WikiProject Grey's Anatomy - KaDee Strickland
Hey! If the project covers all Private Practice-related articles then shouldn't it be written somewhere that the project does so? Also, I think people might be confused when they go on KaDee Strickland's talk page and see that the article "falls into the scope of Grey's Anatomy Wikiproject", even if they know Private Practice is a spin-off of Grey's. --Sofffie7 (talk) 21:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I have been meaning to note that in the scope info of the project. Also, I don't think so because most people who go to talk pages are users, not readers, so they would understand that PP may not have its own project. We could however, create a task force dedicated to PP. This may take some work, but I'll be willing to set it up eventually. TRLIJC19 (talk) 21:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I think a note mentioning the project also covers Private Practice would be enough. I wonder whether a task force is really necessary/useful. --Sofffie7 (talk) 15:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Well it could be useful, if we can find users who are interested in working on the articles for PP. The PP articles are in terrible condition as of now, and there are a few that could be promoted to GA with some work. For example, Charlotte King just needs some copyediting/cleanup/updating before it is set for GAN. Addison Montgomery is in pretty bad condition, but obviously there is enough information to develop it to GA. Also, Private Practice (TV series) could make it to GA with some work. A task force might help get these articles up to standards. Are you interested in working on PP articles? TRLIJC19 (talk) 15:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
OK, I see :) No, I'm not interested in developing Private Practice articles; sorry ;-) Sofffie7 (talk) 16:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Ghostface
I'd be interested in hearing your input. I took it about as far as I could, but it became really difficult to find sources and so I just made it as good as I could. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm logging off right now, but I will read through the article later tonight, and try to make a list of issues to be fixed. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 01:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Grey's Anatomy
I have read your message on my talk page, and accept that those are fine. But I do think The Futon Critic is the publisher. If it isn't, please write the work. Also, I'm currently trying to fix various WP:DASH issues with the ref.s if that is fine. TBrandley 02:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I'll take a look at the Futon Critic's website. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello members of WikiProject Grey's Anatomy! We are sending out our weekly newsletter with updates about the project and tasks. Big apologies for the lack of the newsletter last week! First of all, we would like to welcome a new member to the project, TBrandley; we look forward to collaborating with him. We have several new achievements and updates to be announced! We have three new good articles! The articles that were promoted are "Give Peace a Chance" (previously a DYK), which was created and developed by TRLIJC19, Sadie Harris, which was developed by Sofffie7 and TRLIJC19, and "Flight", which was developed by Sofffie7 and TRLIJC19. Grey's Anatomy and Grey's Anatomy (season 3) are in the preparations for FAC. There are many things to be done for the project, in an attempt to exemplify its best work. Below is a list of tasks, and guidelines:
Tasks and Gudelines
*Character Pages
Ensure that each character page has this section order:
Shorten character storylines, using {{Cite episode}} to reference episodes, and break down season sub-section headers into just one section, "Storylines".
Keep an eye out for vandalism, as that tends to occur at that page.
General
Many users and IPs have been erasing "surgical resident" from fifth year residents characters' occupations in infoboxes and at List of Grey's Anatomy characters. This should all be held off until more info is given on their current occupation in the season premiere. Revert if you see this, and if it's persistent; warn users.
Some IPs/Users have been changing Lexie Grey's article as well as Callie Torres, going against MOS. Revert if you see this, and try to explain to the IP/User why this is wrong.
Weekly Initiative!
The weekly initiative this week is to develop a Grey's Anatomy-related stub or start-class article, using the relevant guidelines above! Model your article off of a Grey's Anatomy page with GA status. Use your Wikipedia skills to fix MOS inconsistencies, copyedit, add more information by researching, and remove unreferenced claims! Barnstars will be awarded to users who destub/de-start their articles, and get the quality level promoted to at least 'C' class! You can determine if an article meets the 'C' class criteria by asking for the reviewing coordinator, TRLIC19, or one of his delegates (Jonathan Harold Koszeghi and Sofffie7) to review the article. Please do not change the article's quality rating yourself; you must have it reviewed by a member of the reviewing committee. A list of stub and start class Grey's Anatomy articles can be found at the project's main page. Also, use the templates listed at the project page to recruit new members; the more the merrier! Take part in these initiatives, have fun destubbing/starting articles, feel proud after the article you cleaned up looks better, and be rewarded with barnstars! Help make a difference and get started! Furthermore, if you notice that any user has participated in any weekly initiative and was not rewarded, give them a barnstar ASAP!
Have fun, and don't forget to cite everything you write! We hope to see several expanded articles, and new members, soon!
--The community of WikiProject Grey's Anatomy (Written by newsletter coordinator TRLIJC19)
Talkback
Hello, TRLIJC19. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Good articles. Message added 02:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Wikipedia:Verifiability requires that everything added to Wikipedia must be verifiable, and any content that is challenged or likely to be challenged has to supported with an inline citation. I have been unable to verify that Gage Golightly ever appeared in the series and the source used in the section doesn't list her. The claim has clearly been challenged by its removal and so any inclusion requires an inline citation. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your verifiability comment, but you are wrong about the requirement of a reference per WP:TVPLOT, which states that Citing the episode explicitly in the plot summary's section is not necessary. If you watch "A Midsummer's Nightmare", you will see in the credits that Gage Golightly does in fact portray Vanessa. The 'reference' you are referring to in the section is from IMDb, and is therefore not even reliable. However, since Golightly only appeared in one episode, I do not think that grants her a spot in a "recurring" table. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 04:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
WP:TVPLOT is only part of an editing guideline, while Wikipedia:Verifiability is actually policy, and therefore has greater weight. Furthermore, WP:TVPLOT specifically refers to plot summaries of episodes, not lists of characters so it's not applicable here. It's not necessary to provide a citation for an episode summary, but other content does need sources. You're correct that the source in that section is from IMDb, but that wasn't the only source that I checked. Regardless of what MOS:TV says, if a claim is challenged, it does need to be supported by a citation. You'll also note that the addition to the article says that she was a recurring character for seasons 1-3 and, that certainly is not the case. I've now found that she did appear in one episode, but only 1 (A Midsummer's Nightmare) and that still excludes her from the list because she didn't have a recurring role. (The section is titled "Actors with recurring roles".) This is why we need sources. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay you're really pulling strings by insinuating that WP:TVPLOT only refers to plot summaries of episodes, because if you go to the majority of television articles; the lists have no sources. For example, please see 24 (TV series)#Notable recurring characters, a GA, where recurring characters are not referenced, because the show itself is the clear source. Another example is Firefly (TV series)#Recurring characters, a FA, where recurring characters are also not referenced. This is a well-known editing guideline, and it is displayed by a number of articles. If for any reason the claim is challenged, you can confirm it by referencing the episode the character appeared in with a {{cite episode}} template. Also, I am not arguing that she should have been in the list, because if you read my above comment, I agreed that she should not be. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 14:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
It's not a stretch at all. "As a rough guide, summaries for episode articles should be about 200 to 500 words.","For articles on the main work this section should be brief, only discussing the important plot elements for each season","For season articles, there are a couple ways to present plot information","The plot summary is an overview of the episode's main events","basic descriptions of their plots are acceptable"- these are all excerpts from WP:TVPLOT. Nowhere are are characters mentioned, except in the section following WP:TVPLOT, which is about characters. You're confusing what TVPLOT says, with what WP:V said until yesterday, i.e. "It must be possible to attribute all information in Wikipedia to reliable, published sources that are appropriate for the content in question. However, in practice it is only necessary to provide inline citations for quotations and for any information that has been challenged or that is likely to be challenged." WP:V no longer provides that option. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Did you not see the two articles I showed you, one FA and one GA, that obviously had no reference for recurring characters? I am not implying that it is written about characters, but as shown in the articles I listed, it is commonly applied to character lists as well. The below information about character lists says nothing about sourcing it, and you seem to be ignoring the fact that citations are in fact not required for these lists. Regardless, we both agree that Vanessa in fact should not be on that list, which is the basic point. I have no interest in arguing over this, TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Those articles are really not relevant. Lists can be created without sources. The fact that the two you have mentioned don't have any sources just means that nobody has challenged them. As I've already said, TVPLOT is only part of an editing guide, WP:V is policy and has to be followed. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
FAs and GAs are the standard to aim for, so claiming they are not relevant is ridiculous. Who was challenging that Golightly wasn't in the series? If you actually watched the episode, you would see she is in it, and there is no challenge. It is not a quote, or a remarkable claim, so a secondary source is not required. If you watched the episode instead of jumping to the revert button, you would have clearly noticed that Golightly is credited. The fact that WP:V is a policy is irrelevant, because the only difference is that guidelines have occasional exceptions and policies should normally [be] follow[ed]. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes FAs and GAs are the standard we aim for but that's irrelevant here as WP:V doesn't require that everything be accompanied by a citation, only content that is challenged or likely to be challenged. It's quite okay to include tables without sources, regardless of an article's status. Even a short, barely-more-than-a-stub article can include a table that would meet FA requirements. However, as should be apparent from the title "Good Article" or "Featured Article" status applies to the whole article, not just a section, and even those involved in the promotion of articles to GA or FA status will acknowledge that there are promoted articles that contain content that is not GA or FA compliant. This was highlighted recently when List of Friends episodes' nomination was rejected. Regarding Golightly, the claim that was added and which was restored said she was a recurring character in all 3 seasons. She was in a single episode so that was clearly wrong. We've already discussed this. Your reasoning why WP:V is supposedly irrelevant actually supports the argument that policies have greater weight. WP:POLICIES makes the difference clear: Policies have wide acceptance among editors and describe standards that all users should normally follow while guidelines are sets of best practices that editors should attempt to follow. In other words, policies have greater weight than guidelines. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I continue to say that I have no interest in arguing over this; we both agree she doesn't deserve a spot in a recurring table. I do not feel like continuously reading your long repetitive responses. I am aware of the difference between policies and guidelines, and the standards for WP:V; and I assume you are as well. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Grey's Anatomy Administrative board
I have noticed your "Administrative board" at WP:Grey's. Just letting you know that if you tell me which articles to do, I'd be willing to be the project's Monitor if you can't find anyone. Thanks, TBrandley 03:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
As per WP:OWN, it's not mine; it's the community's. As noted at the board info, the minimum requirement is one month of active membership to the project, so we are waiting to see if users who meet the criteria decide to join. If they do not, I will notify you, and would be happy for you to help out with the internal processes of the project. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 04:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
RE: Request
I have changed the bgcolor. I felt the same way, but was to lazy to choose another at time. I've choose light green? I always like feedback, so, thanks! TBrandley 04:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
It looks better now; but why is the text so tiny? TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 04:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I sometimes like it small. I'll up the text size to 90, rather than 85. Thinks that's better. TBrandley 04:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Done, I've done a bit of copyediting to the article. TRLIJC19 (talk) 06:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
it. Congratulations and keep up the good work! And I hope my reviewing was satisfactory! — M.Mario (T/C) 21:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
