User talk:User F203/Archive 2

Pizza Hut
Dear F203, the link provided for the change from Pizza Hut to The Hut is speculation: "Pizza Hut to change its name?

The iconic restaurant chain is reportedly set to slice pizza from its name in a bid to spice up its image.". Regards, AlexandrDmitri (talk) 21:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * In the future, please do not move an article based upon a speculative article. Until such a time that Yum! announces such a move, please leave the name as it is. --Jeremy (blah blah) 22:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize it was speculative but have since fixed many of the changes. Sorry. User F203 (talk) 22:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: merge of [ Howard Richardson (Colonel))[1958 Tybee Island B-47 crash
Great, thanks! I think the merge was the right thing to do for now; if enough well-sourced info on Col. Richardson turns up (preferably not all to do with this incident, per WP:BLP1E), it can be broken out into a separate article again. Hqb (talk) 18:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: merge of Howard Richardson (Colonel) into 1958 Tybee Island B-47 crash
Great, thanks! I think the merge was the right thing to do for now; if enough well-sourced info on Col. Richardson turns up (preferably not all to do with this incident, per WP:ONEEVENT), it can be broken out into a separate article again. Hqb (talk) 18:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

WMATA Metrorail train collision
At the same time though, details about this are unfolding. It is usually standard convention to keep the Current event tag until there isn't recent news coming out about it. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 15:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Vicenarian (T · C) 16:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Goofy
You are goofy. :-P Vicenarian  (T · C) 16:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Intro Language
It seems redundant, yes, but check out the guidelines in MOS:BEGIN. Vicenarian (T · C) 21:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the title is not descriptive in the sense that MOS means, it's the name of a specific incident. It's THE collision, not the "characteristics of collisions." It may be a name that we've come up for it, but it's still a specific, singular event. Vicenarian  (T · C) 21:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Farrah picture
There's a couple things that need to happen here:
 * First (after realizing that she just died) I checked back in the revision history and did not see a free image of the actress. This would be preferable to non-free but that's not the case.
 * Second, NFC policy requires that we have no non-free images of living persons. While I'm a tad distressed that an NFC has appeared so close to her reported death, there's technically nothing wrong with that image from now on in terms of replacability (The idea is, if the person is living, it is always possible to get a free image of that person even if it requires a lot of work).
 * What is now the issue is that the image needs a rationale to justify its use on the page about Farrah, not, as there presently is, for the page on the character Jill. As you noted in your message to me, the justification for its use on Jill's page does not work for the page on Farrah.  This just needs to be added to bring the image's use in complainace. --M ASEM  (t) 18:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We prefer to use free over non-free. So, in my first point, if there was a free picture of Farrah on the article while she was still alive, using the non-free image in its place would be inappropriate.  Now, that doesn't mean there could still be a free picture of Farrah out there that could be used to replace the free image, and in fact that should still be encouraged.  However, as of her death, per our NFC policy, without knowledge of a free picture a non-free image could be used. As soon as a free image surfaces, that changes. --M ASEM  (t) 19:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Re:Non-free question
There's debate about the use of non-free content on pages of those who have recently died- the logic is that it is potentially still replaceable (someone may have a free image sitting around, as you say) or that the content is not really needed- point 8 of the non-free content criteria. With older actors, there are sometimes free images from adverts (see this template). Also, there's a possibility a free image could be requested, as well as found. This sort of detail would come up if, for instance, the article went to FAC, or someone decided to push the issue. Legally, we're probably sound (I'm not a lawyer, and whenever the lawyer is asked, he gernally says legally we're good) but, naturally, our non-free content criteria are far, far stricter than law (which a lot of people get very ratty about). Personally, I would support the removal of that image unless the chances of a free alternative have been exhausted- certainly, I wouldn't be using it at this time- the article will be getting lots of views from people who may have a free image. I doubt the editors of the article would agree with that view. J Milburn (talk) 21:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * People may accuse you of being a trouble-maker, just as I frequently get accused of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, being a hyper deletionist, being a slave to the rules, not using common sense or even abusing my admin status (all of those accusations are from the last few days...). People are often unhappy with those trying to enforce our NFCC. If you're familiar with the subject of the article, you may be better off searching for a free image- old adverts without copyright notices may be a good place to start, or it may be worth sending out a few emails (check out this page- worked for me, see Andrew Johnston (singer), Connie Talbot and Faryl Smith). Once you have a free image, the removal of that image would be uncontroversial. However, in the mean time, I would not reccomend nominating for deletion, as the other use of the image seems fairly legit. Instead, talk page conversation (possibly requesting a third opinion with a neutrally worded request on this talk page) would be the best path forward. You're also welcome to contact me with any NFC issues; I'm happy to help or offer advice with regards to those (or any other, I suppose) concerns. J Milburn (talk) 21:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I would support that action, but you may find yourself quickly reverted. Heading to the talk page would be your best bet at that point. (See above, if you missed it...). J Milburn (talk) 21:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Stop bolding everything, please
There are quite the simple and straightforward points to be found, had you read the "lengthy discussion" at the article talk page. Both a brief but imho valid explanation for why this is often done wrong on Wikipedia and also some sound suggestions on a common sense approach can be found here. 84.44.140.9 (talk) 18:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm very confused
What does Maria Chapur and muder victim AfD's have to do with each other? I'm in a couple of AfD discussions about murder victims and that one. If you are asking if I think a victim should have their own article, the answer is no unless they are notable on their own, seperate from the event. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Akureyri/GA2
So sorry about the delay; I can push back the deadline a couple more days. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I left my follow up comments there. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Fritzpoll (talk) 21:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Re:request for article
I have restored the history of the page at Maria Belen Shapur so that you can access it and merge any material (preserving edit histories) as appropriate. I will mention what I have done to the deleting admin, make sure he's ok with it. J Milburn (talk) 22:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've just chatted to Fritzpoll, and I am moving the page hisory to your userspace. Please bare with me a second. J Milburn (talk) 22:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The history can now be found at User:User F203/temporary sandbox for Maria B. If you find nothing of value, please let me know, and I will move the history back to where it belongs and redelete. J Milburn (talk) 22:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you do find something you want to merge (you can just take a reference, but you couldn't "just take" a sentence or two) please let me know, and I will move the history back to the original location so that the merge can be done properly. J Milburn (talk) 22:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to hear you were able to salvage some useful references. I must speak in favour of Fritzpoll- he is a good admin and a decent person, it just appears that there was a misunderstanding regarding your interest in the page history- we all make mistakes. I don't know if you have seen his reply on my talk page, but he would have been happy to restore the article if he realised what your intention was. Are you done with the article now? If so, I will be able to place the history back where it was. If not, do let me know when you are done. J Milburn (talk) 17:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Everyone has deleted edits, don't worry about it. I have several thousand. J Milburn (talk) 18:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Re:deletion, in general
Well, there are a number of reasons. In the case of hoaxes, vandalism and the like, we have no interest in giving the vandals some kind of trophy. In cases of copyright violations, we may have a legal reason. Also, in many cases (for instance, a page about a living person) we have the perogative to do no harm. For instance, in the current case, deletion could be seen as a courtesy to Ms. Shapur. I do not deal with AfDs much myself, but Fritzpoll explained to me that the consensus was the deletion of the article- creating a redirect was an editorial decision on his own part. I think the biggest reason for deletion generally is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not anything else. This means that there's no reason to keep anything that is not aiding us in our goal of being an encyclopedia. (I'm no techy, but I doubt deleting frees up space, as it's still accessible to admins). J Milburn (talk) 18:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Murder articles
I have nominated murder articles for merging into murder. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. – iride  scent  20:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

re: Murder deletion
Firstly, murders come under WP:N/CA. However, I for one wouldn't object to adding to this (after all, a murder is slightly different from a shoplift). But I would object to a whole new page being created for this. Also, if you plan to make changes to WP:N/CA then there should be a much wider discussion (preferably on the talk page of that article).

In reply to your message, here's my views on some of the ideas you had (some of my answers will be related to WP:N/CA:


 * 1) Length of time of coverage.
 * (a) coverage of the murder more than 1 year after it becomes known: The time since the crime happened shouldn't effect it's notability, either by making it less/more notable if it's been around for awhile, or making it less/more if it's only just happened. This said, we shouldn't disregard that a crime act is still receiving significant coverage after a year.
 * (b) repeated coverage of the trial, perhaps defining repeated: Well according to WP:N/CA, for any crime act to be notable it must have received multiple references from sources (this doesn't include references from the same source). Personally I think that this part is fine.
 * (c) locally significant murder: No, crime acts which have only received coverage from local sources are not, and should not be notable.
 * 1) Unusual nature of murder: No, the actual details of the act shouldn't have an effect on the notability. The sources define notability. So if the act is particularly unusual, then it will likely have received more sources (and thus be more notable). But if it hasn't then we ourselves shouldn't make it more notable just because of what happened.
 * 2) Coverage by the foreign media: If the papers where national, then it would be notable under WP:N/CA. It's unlikely that a local paper in a foreign country would cover the act without the national paper doing the same.
 * 3) Coverage of the murder more than 1 week at the time of discovery and more than 1 week at the time of trial. Could be 2. See answer to 1
 * 4) Significant uproar when the murderer is up for parole. This I wouldn't mind adding to WP:N/CA. If there is a large amount of "uproar" as you put it (there would need to be a lot, and it would need to be worded better), then the murder should be notable.

Basically, some good, some not. But I don't think that murders should be treated too differently from other criminal acts. Although I do think WP:N/CA could possibly use a re-write (3/5 of the page seems to be about how to write the article, and weather or not to have articles for the culprit/victims). Cheers - Kingpin13 (talk) 21:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As the poor fool who proposed and drafted our criminal acts guideline, let me know if there's any way I can help or questions that I can answer Fritzpoll (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well mostly, what do you think of #5? It reminds me of the "large cult following" in WP:BIO. Also, no self personal attacks please ;), I think you did a great job with WP:N/CA, and it certainly helped me out in a recent AfD - Kingpin13 (talk) 21:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Well, the only condition under which 5 would require a change to the guidelines would obviously be if the murder was not initially notable on its own.  I guess the main concern would be the risk of violating WP:NOT and WP:SBST.  Have we got any examples of an event where this has happened?  Fritzpoll (talk) 21:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I vaguely remember a case where an article got deleted. The murder was deemed not notable but several people said it was because it terrorized a city (kidnapping, child rape, then child murder) that was not used to many murders.  The guy was denied parole several times, at one time half of the city's adults signed petitions against release, which is higher than voter turnout!  WP got it deleted. User F203 (talk) 15:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's quite hard to work without real examples. Any chance you can have a think and try to remember where exactly this was on Wikipedia?  Fritzpoll (talk) 15:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a good discussion. Currently, the murder article delete/keeps are not consistent. The rules may be hard to define. Right now, if the murder is carried by CNN, then it's deemed notable and national. Murders before CNN existed have a more difficult time, even if the uproar and effect on society was greater.

Few murders are nationally significant except assasinations of heads of state or celebrities. The locally significant murder idea was to distinguish it from locally insignificant murders.

The coverage by foreign media was interpreted the wrong way. You mentioned that the foreign press would be cover something that the national media would already cover. However, if the foreign press covers it, it must really be significant. The American press rarely covers French murders but when it does, it's really signficant.

How about the idea of news? Should there be a cutoff that stories less than a month old is news when it deals with murder? If a politician is elected, then everyone demands that it be in WP. However, elections are always encyclopedic. Should other things, particularly murders have to stand the test of time? Or just put in news and delete it later?

Very difficult subject to define! User F203 (talk) 15:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Fritzpoll (talk) 23:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Gasp! Some hooligans done stole my ANI!
Don't worry, it's just been moved to the talk page. ^_^ a little   insignificant  16:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

note to self

possible edits during the campaign: Olympic athletes (major ones, not obscure ones), improve cities, etc. User F203 (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Dabomb87 (talk) 22:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)