User talk:Torc2/Archives/2008/January

Contemporary music
Hi Torc2, I wonder if you would be interested in joining the new WikiProject Contemporary music that I’m trying to help organize? I hope you’re enjoying your vacation! --S.dedalus (talk) 21:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm in! Thanks for the heads-up. Torc2 (talk) 18:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The composers dream instruments, orchestra or choir
http://www.soundsonline.com/product.php?productid=EW-165 enjoy! --CyclePat (talk) 08:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Spelling of "Mulley"
There IS a more authourative source that says the spelling of Fenton's name. On the Home Movies Season 3 DVD, there is an easter egg where it shows a guy's bare back with a tatoo of Fenton's mom on it and it also says "Mrs. Mewley" on it. 71.59.112.181 09:51, January 12, 2008 (GMT)
 * Cool, thanks. Torc2 (talk) 21:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The Music
Good day Torc2. I have been trying to correct misleading or outright false information on this page and you seem to take exception to my efforts. Regarding the composers of the theme: This can easily be verified by searching ASCAP's database. The URL is "http://www.ascap.com/ace/search.cfm?mode=search". Type "Duckman Theme" in the Find box. Also the statement "Some of the music for the first season was provided by Frank Zappa" is misleading. It implies that Frank sat down and wrote for Duckman, which he did not. (I worked with him nearly every day from 1989 until his death in 1993.) All Zappa music heard on the show had been written years or decades earlier for other purposes. The two sentences that I provided are brief, accurate and verifiable. I don't understand why the previously posted outright false and unverifiable statements such as "all the music was spliced and rearranged by his son Dweezil Zappa" evidently went unchallenged, but now that I provide easily verifiable facts, you quickly remove them without investigation. Please feel free to contact me at todd_yvega@pacificnet.net if you have questions, comments or suggestions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.34.176 (talk) 20:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. What's been happening is more due to Wikipedia's policies, which, granted, are kind of dense and sometime counterintuitive.  ("The threshold for inclusion should be verifiability, not truth.")  The previous information might have been wrong - I didn't add it.  The correct way to remove it is either to add a  immediately next to the questionable information, or by adding new, sourced information.

By removing the information you added, I wasn't accusing it of being false, just that it would have to be sourced. When you pointed out the TV credit, that was enough to update some of the information. The ASCAP source is perfect and is sufficient to remove the old information and give new information.


 * One other thing to note is that there is a bit of a bias against anonymous editors simply because they are much more likely to vandalize or enter false information (some of which is disguised to really look like good information). Torc2 (talk) 01:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

RE: Lips
Thanks for the welcoming! I'm going to get Staring at Sound and Fearless Freaks at some point in the future to help with Lips articles. I haven't really heard Mercury Rev, but I know a little bit about them; Deserter's Songs is on my endless list of CDs to get when I have more money. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 04:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Deserter's Songs is a great album, but they had a pretty big shift in direction after David Baker left/was kicked out, similar to the way the Lips changed between Transmissions and The Soft Bulletin. Yerself Is Steem has the more raw, more experimental sound than anything from See You on the Other Side onward. Torc2 (talk) 04:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll have to check those out then. Thanks again! --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 08:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:EPISODE
I responded to you on the talk page, but I wanted to make sure my reply wasn't lost in the shuffle:

WP:NNC says notability doesn't necessarily limit length of the topic, and that's very much true. There is, however, a limit on plot-only text, as pointed out by policy at WP:PLOT. That is the vital flaw in your logic. We could theoretically have ten articles about a single episode, as long as it wasn't just plot summary. -- Ned Scott 04:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The policy only says: "not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. This applies both to stand-alone works, and also to series. A brief plot summary may sometimes be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." There is no limit established, only a relative statement that is in line with the larger topic.   My argument is the "larger topic" is the entire series of articles for the TV show, not that single individual sub-topic that include the plot content.  In any case, the policy does defer other in universe or out-of-universe material, such as notable gueststars, notable superhero powers, etc., which could easily boost up the raw size of the article to the point it must be split.  And then we're back at the one question I've been asking all along that nobody is willing to entertain: why is the identical contact treated different whether it's included as part of the main article, or whether it has been broken out entirely due to WP:SIZE constraints?  It's the same information; it should be bound by the same rules. The sub articles should be able to reference the main articles for issues like WP:N and WP:V because they are still part of that article.  The point here isn't about single episode articles; I don't know how it devolved into that.  Any split raises the problem: the split into a separate article for shows and plots, one for separate seasons, one for each show - the problem ends up being the same.  Lists of Episodes about Blah gets deleted for WP:N or for being to "in-universe" because the rules are obsolete and don't allow editors to say: Hey!  The notability and real world information is all in the main article Blah!.  This sub-article is just more content for that article that we moved here to keep it readable Torc2 (talk) 12:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I wasn't expecting you to respond here as well. To that I can only say that the point of guidelines such as WP:EPISODE and WP:FICT is to merge when there isn't enough information left when you've removed what was considered to be excessive detail, or trivial facts, etc. If the same text is in the list article and in the episode article, and that same text is reasonable regardless of its format, then I don't really have any problem with it having its own article. -- Ned Scott 03:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry, I should probably step away from those debates for awhile. I don't want to come off a total dick.  (Too late, probably.)  And I don't want to seem like I'm saying everything should be allowed no matter what.  I understand the intention of those guidelines is good, but I think they error in that their interpretation of WP:NOT is too strict on the exclusionary side. Torc2 (talk) 03:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion
Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a few) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here. --User: (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Duckman
Now, that's better - Be sure to add references, though. Actual episodes as references are fine - just be sure to only state what is explicit or obvious in the episode and try to avoid Original research. Interviews and development data are great helps! WhisperToMe (talk) 03:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandals
I don't want you to get the idea that I am complaining about your anti-vandal efforts - far from it. However, admins have a responsibility to use blocking sparingly, and what I've outlined is general practice. The AIV header used to say "vandalism is active and ongoing" - recently shortened to a more concise "now". An appropriate block for the current offenses of those IP's would have been about 72 hours to a week - no longer - and it has a lot more impact if you can catch them in the act.  Acroterion  (talk)  22:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I did catch them in the act. I caught them within 6 hours of doing what they did; the difference between that and catching them a few minutes after doing what they did is pretty trivial, especially since the blocks issued would be longer than that.  You can't really put the assumed statute of limitations shorter than what the blocks themselves would be - you're either going to assume it's the same person the whole time or assume it's not. Torc2 (talk) 22:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I rather doubt that a kid at school was still there six hours later waiting to be warned or blocked. Seriously, I'm not complaining about your reports: I'm just stating what common practice is.  Other admins are more aggressive - some less.  I'm somewhere in the middle.    Acroterion  (talk)  22:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if they were waiting for the warning; that's not the point. The warning isn't temporary, so anybody editing from that account is going to see the warning.  We don't have to know if it's one person doing the vandalism or not; we know it's one IP, and they're not helping the project at all.  And in all honesty, after a couple hundred AIV reports, I've never seen an administrator more lenient.  I think if you review the list of AIVs for the day, you won't find anybody else dismiss reports of multiple vandalism after final warning without acting on them just because the vandalism is a few hours old. Torc2 (talk) 23:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Robots in Futurama
I see only three deletes, one redirect, one neutral, two merges, and two keeps. I think this is no consensus at best. Torc2 (talk) 22:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Aha! But that's why I left the long comment after the closing summary.... there are 5 deletes..... look again.... I could point them out to you, but what fun would that be.... think of it like one of those Where's Waldo games, they are there. JERRY talk contribs 22:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Judgesurreal777 (nom), Cheeser1, and TheBilly. That's it.  Stardust8212 indirectly votes redirect, but also supports merger if sourced (which JoshuaZ claims to have).  Even if we count Astroview's redirect vote, it's still basically 4 votes to get rid of the information to 4 votes to keep the information in some form. Torc2 (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 22:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope, Stardust8212 says "As such I'd support deleting this in favor of a redirect to the List of page." Which is not an indirect vote to redirect at all... it's a clear delete. Since Torc2 (yes, I realize that's you) struckthrough his/her original keep !vote and added "I'd agree with that." below Stardust8212's comment, it was taken as a delete as well.  Probably not what you meant, based on your objection here, but what's an admin to do?  It's what you said. JERRY talk contribs 22:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Torc2/Rocking Out Against Voldemedia
This previously-deleted article has been userfied to your user space as a result of a WP:DELREV that you recently initiated. I have nowiki'd certain elements of the page that would not be appropriate to a user-space page, as they may contain categorization commands. Please be careful to not place a userfied version into article categories. JERRY talk contribs 16:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I am in search of some sage advice....
Please refer to the article about me... Michael Q. Schmidt (actor)... and the Afd talk page about the article. I am not trying to rally support, but am simply asking for your advice in what I need to do to prevent the continued de-construction of the article. I try to learn and understand more each time I log in to Wiki, but I am still way too new to know how to handle this.

Every few days more information is being deleted in Cumulus Clouds continued bad faith effort to ensure my being non-notable... and in his following up on his promise to keep chopping the article apart. I have no idea why he is so determined to make me disappear... specially with these continued actions against consensus. He knows that if I were to attempt any revert, it would be ammunition for him to claim COI. Hell... even the picture of me that was there was deleted though it was properly uploaded and cited and defended on the IFD page.

Do I have any recourse to the article being picked apart this way? I went to his talk page to tell him that Wikipedia has an established guideline in treating actors... and referenced my associates Tom Arnold, John Goodman, Dan Akroyd, Jack Black, and Patton Oswalt as examples of actors whom have their healthy filmologies listed... but I don't expect a response that follows guideline or example. I ask for any advice you might be able to give. Thank you. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 09:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm only vaguely aware of the whole situation, but it seems like you've got somebody whose knowledgeable about the rules on some kind of crusade. I think it's been unfair and we need to settle the situation down so the necessary information in place.  I'll check this out over the weekend and see if there's any way I can help out.  Sorry about this whole mess; your experience isn't what typically happens on Wikipedia.  Hopefully we can figure out a way to improve it in the future.  I think the AfD should survive with no problem.  I'll reread the article and check the sources over the weekend.  Don't panic and don't be surprised if this moves kind of slow.  By the way, I loved your work in the "Hamburger" episode of Tim & Eric. 11:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It is the slowness that is the most annoying I suppose. I do not know why this guy is on Vendetta, but he is ignoring Wiki protocols and bending the rules as he sees fit. He is on a Jihad and I am his latest infidel. Yikes. User:UsaSatsui sagely suggested that I reduce my filmology to 8 or 12 representive works... and I concur, as it was waaaaaaay to long. Would you consider going over the histories on the article's page, and putting back a much shorter version... whatever you feel best reflects my filmology? You have the NPOV and knowledge of my career. If I did anything myself, he would scream COI. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

100 Club (non profit)
I noticed that the Maria Lauterbach was recently overturned. Recently I made an entry that was relevant to the 100 club in Houston was was surprised that not only that there WAS an article, but was recently Deleted. Is there a way to review the debate and possibly see it being overturned?--Hourick (talk) 14:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Objective criteria for episode notability
I've attempted to synthesize the discussion. Again, feedback welcome.Kww (talk) 18:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: SNL episode list AFD
Hello, I believe you have misinterpreted one of my statements. When I said that the list of episodes is redundant, I did not mean that it was redundant to the History of.. pages. It is redundant of the 33 season pages (e.g., SNL: Season 1, SNL: Season 2, SNL: Season 3, etc.). I'd invite you to please take a look at those pages and judge whether the lengthy LOE is redundant. Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, OK then. I still think this article should exist, and the individual seasons should point to the master list instead. Torc2 (talk) 23:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

C-sharp and F-sharp
Aren't these pages better suited for F-sharp (disambiguation) and C-sharp (disambiguation) so that when the dablinks are used in the article, the people know that they are going to a dab page and not to another article? --soum talk 07:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I really don't think so. Neither of the main uses of these terms - computer languages or musical terms - is dominant, so it seems reasonable to make the plain articles the disambiguation pages without calling them (disambiguation).  At least that what Disambiguation says.  Otherwise we'd have the awkward situation of C-sharp redirecting to C-sharp (disambiguation). However, I just did created redirects from the disambiguation page per the page naming convention guideline, so people can use C-sharp (disambiguation) if they want.  Torc2 (talk) 07:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, ok. Anyways, I have this page watchlisted, you can just reply here. I will know. --soum talk 07:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The renaming of the C Sharp (programming language) page has created a minor problem with the line that reads:


 * The correct title of this article is C#. The substitution or omission of a # sign is because of technical restrictions.


 * If you have any suggestions for a resolution would you be so kind to reply to my comment at Talk:C_Sharp_%28programming_language%29? Thanks. --RenniePet (talk) 06:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Never mind, someone else has fixed it. --RenniePet (talk) 15:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)