User talk:Torc2/Archives/2008/February

Sourced Songs in g sharp/a flat minor
How can you find a source for songs and instrumentals in a musical key? 71.90.23.222 (talk) 16:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Find somebody who has done the analysis and published it. Personally I don't think much of that will get sourced, and I don't believe any of it really belongs. Torc2 (talk) 18:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Snow Bowl title discussion
Can you point me to it (the discussion you cited in the move)? I can't find it on the article talk page or the WP:NFL talk page.  Pats 1  T / C  03:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Here. Torc2 (talk) 20:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Tuck rule game
Your right a day ago I saw a show on the NFL network about the top ten bad weather games and they called that game the Tuck Rule game even though it was the weather condition listed. Thanks.Excitinginterception7 (talk) 20:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Sparx Enterprise Architect
An article that you have been involved in editing, Sparx Enterprise Architect, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Sparx Enterprise Architect. Thank you. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 21:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Right on!
I agree with everything you've said about Betacommand on WP:AN. Why he gets away with as much as he does is beyond me. Jtrainor (talk) 20:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I just don't like the double-standard, that's all.  &mdash;To rc.  ( Ta lk.  ) 20:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Talk:Notability (fiction)
in this change, you seem to have trampled over a few other people's comments. Was this intentional? -Verdatum (talk) 20:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oof, thanks. Fixed that. Totally unintentional.  &mdash;To rc.  ( Ta lk.  ) 20:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I figured that was the case. Wikipedia really could use some integrated merging facilities for these out-of-date commit issues.  It's madness in driven discussions. -Verdatum (talk) 22:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Alternative solutions
I'm impressed by your ideas to think of alternative solutions to the issues at Template talk:SubArticle. Maybe we can find a way to make this work for WP:FICT. I hope so.Geometry guy 22:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's more just frustration and growing disinterest. With the current injunction against deleting character and episode articles, it's kind of unnecessary to bicker about this anymore anyway.  I had no idea that the subarticle template was already in use - I didn't revise it when it became apparent we could use something like this; I just took up the cause because I was tired of seeing policies and guidelines wikilawyered in such a way that the relationship between topics and their associated subtopics was totally ignored in AfDs.  I don't see any reason to copy all the sources to every associated article just to satisfy the notability guideline when it would be easier to just point readers at where all the sources are.   &mdash;To rc.  ( Ta lk.  ) 22:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope we can find consensus to support good fictional subtopics, without undermining basic principles of article notability. I will try to contribute my thoughts to WT:FICT soon. A good guideline should reduce the number of AfDs without contradicting basic principles of WP:N. That's quite a challenge, but I think it can be done! I really hope your frustration and disinterest will be only temporary, as it is essential to have input from people who know the problems on the ground. Geometry guy 23:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :-) I'll come back to it eventually.  I just think I should take a break from it for now.  &mdash;To rc.  ( Ta lk.  ) 23:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * given that Arb com will eventually finish and say, most likely, that the community ought to develop some standards, we should be ready for it. My currently feeling is to support Masem's as the  compromise solution that will have the widest acceptance. DGG (talk) 04:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC).
 * I can live with Masem's solution. I still think it'll be interpreted badly later on, but I don't see any solution that won't be.  &mdash;To rc.  ( Ta lk.  ) 01:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Name change is complete
Hey T2 - I made the name change we discussed at WP:CLS, but there are still some additional changes to the text (esp. in what was the Series box section/is now the nav. template section) that could be made to make the page broader. Any of your help doing so (and changes to what I have done so far) would of course be welcome. Thanks! UnitedStatesian (talk) 06:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Stop
Stop that, it's borderline wikistalking. Blast Ulna (talk) 07:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't. WP:STALK: "Reading another user's contribution log is not in itself harassment; those logs are public for good reason. In particular, proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles (in fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam). The important part is the disruption — disruption is considered harmful. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter." - I'm not doing that to be disruptive; I'm doing it because I really believe these do not violate any guideline and that a PROD is the wrong course of action.  &mdash;Torc.  ( Talk. ) 07:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Really? Are you sure the artists were notable? Did any of the pages show any sign of sources? Wasn't one of the "articles" a list of shows with no supporting text at all? My Prod tags were in good faith, and needed to be deprodded with at least some care. Blast Ulna (talk) 07:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was, and it's no different than any other List of (topic) article; it's just content, not an independent article. Like I said on the WP:MUSIC talk page: pages like this are just subarticles that include content from their parent articles.  If you disagree with that, fine, take it to AfD, but I don't want to see these pages deleted without discussion and consensus.  &mdash;Torc.  ( Talk.  ) 07:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * See Articles for deletion/Portrait of an American Family Tour for an idea of how it will go. Blast Ulna (talk) 07:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, do you want to discuss this here or at the talk page. Both is unnecessary.   &mdash;Torc.  ( Talk.  ) 08:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with him contesting your prod's. Also as I have pointed out elsewhere you keep holding up that AFD like it's some grand example of consensus. 3 votes, 1 keep, 1 delete, and 1 conditional delete, not really convincing for proof of any sort of strong consensus. Ridernyc (talk) 14:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Release dates in Template:Infobox_Album
Please comment in the discussion at Template_talk:Infobox_Album. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)