User talk:Tim!/Archive 11

Please note I reserve the right to remove excessively colourful formatting from any messages left on this talk page, thank you!
 * Last archive at User talk:Tim!/Archive 10.

Episodes
Episode articles need to be able to reach the standards of this site. That requires real world information like development and reception notes. That is obviously not happening for the Yes... epsiodes. To meet the quideline, people working should have had sources ready anyways. We cannot just leave them around, and just hope that one day someone may want to work on them because only a few have the possibility. Unless you have actual sources to back the articles up, please let me revert them. (SeeWP:VPP for the latest discussion). TTN 12:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You need more than one source that gives minor production details in order to keep the articles. See the project and episode list for talk pages for more details. TTN 12:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Protection
Just so you know, adding that template to a page does not protect the page. Only an administrator can protect pages - the template is just to warn people that it is protected. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 12:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If you're talking about Alan Coren, I protected the page first. Thanks anyway. The repeat of The News Quiz led to a bit more vandalism today on other related articles but hopefully people will find something more amusing to do in a couple of days. Tim! 12:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Catagory on Doctor (Doctor Who)
it is not useless. LizzieHarrison 19:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Russell01.jpg
It's not PD - it's actually Non-free promotional. My bad - that was early on in my Wikipedia career when the exact tags that were appropriate were not available/not clear. I'm correcting it and adding the proper rationale. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Template
Citing one source for minor details does not assert notability. The tag still requires the article to follow WP:EPISODE and WP:N. You need the things suggested by WP:EPISODE. TTN 18:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sources need to assert notability to be valid. Just having them doesn't cut it. TTN 18:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "If you are familiar with the subject matter, please improve this article by adding citations to reliable secondary sources to establish its notability..." is right there in the text. All articles must assert notability, and this is the notability template for episodes. TTN 18:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And it links directly to WP:EPISODE which is a notability guideline for episode articles (among other things). TTN 18:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, the sources have to mean something. Their existence is doesn't automatically make the articles fine and dandy. They must help bring them up to WP:EPISODE's standards, which they do not. You cannot just wikilawyer on the one point. TTN 18:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you really that stuck on the wording? The general header is just to summarize it. Take a look at the bottom part of it. It directly states "reliable secondary sources to establish its notability" are needed. That is the point of the tag, and as those article don't do that, the tag is valid. TTN 18:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The thing goes together as a whole. The main point is that it doesn't have real sources. Sources have to assert notability to count. The small text just explains it more clearly. TTN 18:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, fine. How is the template now? It directly states that it doesn't establish notability in the big text (which is exactly the same as the small text). TTN 18:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh, no. Articles must establish notability. It was "rejected" for "forcing" a deadline, and being too "in your face." TTN 18:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And, again, the notability line is already in the template. How do you just ignore that? TTN 18:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Where exactly is the notability that you're referring to? I don't see "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." I see one guidebook that has failed to give anything besides minor details that are not independent to the episodes, and can be included in the episode list table. TTN 18:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And this template is an offshoot of the notability template. It is just meant to be more specific regarding episodes, so adding the main notability template is exactly the same thing. TTN 18:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You know what, never mind. I'll just let the whole review process take care of it. I don't need to fight over a few tags.TTN 18:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Tim, just so you know, the "notability concept" was not shot down in the TfD. The DRV clearly backed that the TfD was a no consensus, even if no one desired to overturn the decision. Not only that, but only some of the editors supporting delete in the TfD had a beef with the "notability concept", while others simply objected to the appearance of a deadline, etc. -- Ned Scott 21:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you refrain from removing the template from ones that have just won awards? They are a good springboard for notability, but they cannot warrant an article on their own. Awards can easily be included in a general section for the series (such as "It has won various awards including x emmys for the episodes..."). Articles need more substance than that. TTN 12:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And it is especially good to stop because not all awards are on the same level. Emmys are good, but the "EMA Award" on its own is nothing compared to them. TTN 12:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that I should improve the articles instead of tagging them or something (that's all I can get out of "incorrect dependence")? It is up to the people that assert that these articles are worthy of inclusion, not me. Anyways, I am hardly disrupting anything. These need to be tagged because they don't assert notability, and most likely never will. This is an ongoing problem that needs to be dealt with. Is AWB the only problem with the tagging or something? If it is, let me assure you that it can only help me look at the articles and evaluate them.
 * Often, the person accusing another of being a dick is just the pot calling the kettle black, just so you know. TTN 12:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There are way too many articles, and not many of them can be improved. And again, it is up to the people that assert their importance to follow the guidelines, not me. Notability is the amount of non-trivial coverage we can have of a topic (which equates to the amount of good secondary sources that can be provided). "Importance" is too vague of a term. Are these episodes important to the show? Yes. Are they important to this site? Not unless they have the sources to show that. TTN 12:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT does not overrule WP:V or WP:N. All articles have to follow those to exist (thus, the editors that want to keep the articles must assert their notability). So, not meeting our notability criteria (importance = notability in this case) is definite grounds for deletion. When I say importance, I mean the importance of a topic's inclusion on the site, not however you define it. It can always be replaced with notability. TTN 12:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh, that is not the point of that section. If it were the point, I could go make an article about myself because it trumps the notability guideline. Do you see the logical fallacy in your statement? It either follows the guideline (and policy), which means that not everything is included, or it trumps it, which means that I can be included. TTN 12:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, you should note the "other than verifiability" part of that section. WP:V directly correlates with WP:N. TTN 12:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If a topic follows WP:V correctly, it is worthy of inclusion, so I have no idea what that does for your argument. I fail to see how I have used a strawman at this point. You should probably point it out and refute it before claiming that I have used it. TTN 12:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I said that PAPER doesn't overrule WP:N, meaning that just because we have the space for an article, doesn't mean that we can include it unless it passes WP:N. You said that it does overrule it, so notability (and WP:V) is thrown out the window. Maybe you didn't mean to have it come out that way, but my argument works fine according to that. TTN 12:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If that was supposed to refer to "There are way too many articles" or something, you misread my statement. There are too many to think that they can be actively worked on, not too many to actually hold. TTN 12:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * So, where the hell are we in this argument anyways? TTN 12:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you still not get that the spirit of the template is notability? Will it really change anything for you if I replace it with the notability template? What makes you so stubborn over these minor details? TTN 13:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * A good number of non-trivial, secondary sources must be able to provide information. At this point, all you have are awards, which can be counted as trivial due to the fact that they can easily be included elsewhere. Please explain WP:N (not a personal definition of how notability should be on this site) to me if that is not the case. TTN 13:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? I just stated that it depends on sources, which these don't have enough of. Awards are good, but a single award is not enough to close the case as they can be included in a larger section of the main series quite easily. A one sentence reception section is not good; you need a paragraph in the very least. TTN 13:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * We're right back at the start. Again (and again), it is not up to me to have to do anything. I should not have to fiddle with a topic that I don't know much about (Before you say anything, I can still tell that it is not notable.) just because you think that they're notable. It is up to the people that want to include them (i.e. you) to add sources or prove that there is a general possibility for improvement. Awards are a decent start, but you need more than that to have firmly established notability. TTN 13:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * They have been around for a long enough time already, and leaving them will do squat. You know that, I know that, and everybody knows that. Only a few series have even tried to improve, and that is only after actually having the problem put in front of them. That is another good reason for the tag. TTN 13:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The Enemy Within the Gates
Please do not re-add the unreferenced episode to this article, as it is no longer a notability template per multiple discussions on TFD and DRV. Tim! 09:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The template I restored was Dated episode notability and how about you comment on the notability of this (or any of the other tv episode) article? I would appreciate it if you would refer me to any more appropriate templates and the discussions you refer to above. --Jack Merridew 09:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Try clicking on the link Dated episode notability, you'll see it was redirected to unreferenced episode per TFD and DRV discussion. Tim! 09:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I saw that it was a redirect after I posted - sorry about that - and thanks for the links.
 * What I'm interested in is the correct procedure for challenging the existence of the endless articles on tv episodes. I found the The Enemy Within the Gates article in the contribs of User:TTN whom I just dropped a note to about this; I know nothing about this show except what the article says and my main reaction is SO? A tv episode from almost 40 years ago? As I see it, this is a slippery slope that leads to a million articles on non-notable dross. --Jack Merridew 09:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry I'm not very interested in what you consider "dross". Tim! 09:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Please consider my views on non-notability. --Jack Merridew 10:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:500_year_diary.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:500_year_diary.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MER-C 10:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Unreferenced episode
Hi Tim. I'm considering nominating this template for deletion as well, articles are not obligated to use secondary sources (primary sources are fine -- when used correctly). There's also the point this template appears to be just a guise to sneak the whole 14 day-deadline back in, not to mention it's being applied to articles with secondary sources. What's your opinion? Matthew 10:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh my, WikiProject Television/Episode coverage/Articles for review will be at MfD pretty soon. Do you notice how they're voting, then one of the people who voted judges consensus? Eek. Matthew 10:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It was a new process and no one knew how to close the debates. A few people just sort of went for it, and it was usually in a situation that was obvious, so no one had a problem with it. Just as you love to say, Matthew, we should improve, not delete. -- Ned Scott 05:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

tv show episode notability
Hey there. I'd like to explain that I really fail to see why rote articles on every episode of every tv show ever shown are in anyway notable. The Dad's Army episode articles I've looked at all have the same format - plot summary, cast lists - and no meat. The sources you are adding merely cite factual details - like the cast list and the correct spelling of the episode title. This sort of citation does not address the issue of notability. I'm going to leave these articles alone for now and see what happens. There seems to be a lot of movement towards cleaning this sort of thing up, so you might want to look ahead and rethink your position. --Jack Merridew 15:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Episode review MFD
I've taken a stab at changing how the reviews are handled at WP:TV-REVIEW. I'd like to simplify things even more, if I can. As it is now, the review page simply contains a list of active discussions, but the discussions now take place on a parent article, such as a List of episodes talk page. The review page has also been renamed to make it clear that it is not exclusive to a single WikiProject, or anything like that. I'd also like to make it clear that review tagging and such wasn't supposed to be done with scripts or without actually looking at the articles. I was wondering if this satisfies some of your concerns on the matter. -- Ned Scott 05:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ainlea07.jpg
I have tagged Image:Ainlea07.jpg as no rationale, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. Thank you. MER-C 10:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion matrix
I tweaked your Inclusion matrix — hope you don't mind. --Jack Merridew 11:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No it's nice, thanks. Tim! 11:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Tim

 * I knew that something was off about the way Otto4711 carries himself in discussions, which really aren't like discussions most of the time when "talking" with him, even before debating with him in the Cliff Warner and Nina Cortlandt deletion debate. Thanks to what you stated in this link here......I now know for sure that my feeling that he is quite un-civil a lot of the times is quite correct.

Anyway, thank you a lot for pointing that fact out so brilliantly. Flyer22 23:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:All-Consuming_Fire.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:All-Consuming_Fire.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 10:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 10:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:All-Consuming_Fire.JPG
I have tagged Image:All-Consuming_Fire.JPG as no rationale, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 10:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)