User talk:Xeworlebi/Archive 3

Fringed References
Instead of correcting me... here's a crazy idea, go down to the reference section at look at #55. There's something wrong and I can't find the mistake, epecially since you keep chaning everything back without checking it first. 174.91.247.3 (talk) 18:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Reference 55 was located at Fringe (season 3), removing unrelated references is vandalism, I've fixed it.  X  eworlebi (talk) 18:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

End of Line
I just put in a request to change the title to "End of the Line" on tv.com, with a link to the episode's Syfy page as my reasoning. Pain as it is to have to edit two sites to get one thing done, that should put a stop to this (one instance of) nonsense. Damn site should really come with a disclaimer. KnownAlias  contact  21:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah that's good. As you're probably aware TV.com has an approval process. I guess the episode was once announced as "End of Line" and later officially billed as "End of the Line".  X  eworlebi (talk) 21:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer episodes
Hey, I just noticed you've made separate articles for the Buffy seasons, what are your plans for those articles? Because I definitely would love to help out. Though I ask why did you name them "List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer episodes (season 1)" rather than "Buffy the Vampire Slayer (season 1)"? Drovethrughosts (talk) 23:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Because there is no information other then the episode list on it, it isn't a full season article. If the page is further expanded with reception, development etc, then they could be moved to "Buffy the Vampire Slayer (season X)", for now that would be an inaccurate title. I have no further plans for those articles, I split them up because the main page was to big (94K) and uncomfortably long to navigate. But I will definitely keep an eye on those pages, and help if possible, but I'm just not that good of a writer.  X  eworlebi (talk) 09:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, all the season pages have been expanded quite a bit – expanded lead with season overview, infobox image, cast and crew sections, categories and navboxes. I tried moving them to "Buffy the Vampire Slayer (season X)", but I couldn't, I'm assuming because pages with those names are serving as redirects to the main "List of..." page. Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Very nice work! I would have moved the pages when development, reception, some real world info was added. But I guess they could be moved now just as well as they already contain much more then just the episode list. I'll request technical deletions for the season pages to make way for the move. Again, nice work.  X  eworlebi (talk) 22:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Request deletion per WP:CSD done, now just wait till someone deletes those pages, I've already moved season 7 since that page was still available.  X  eworlebi (talk) 22:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Pages are obviously moved now, thanks for nominating the redirects for deletion. Added DVD release sections to all the pages today. I'm going to try and add a "Reception" section (Nielsen ratings, awards/nominations, etc), it's just hard finding references for critical reviews of the specific seasons as it's been quite a few years. I also might add a section called "Crossovers with Angel" and list all the crossovers. Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

D'oh!
Ah, gotcha! Sorry about that. TFOWR 10:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Face-smile.svg No problem.  X  eworlebi (talk) 10:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

List of Flashpoint Episodes
Not sure what was wrong with adding a Guest Star (Kelly Rowan) line to a Season 3 episode? I have seen it done in other series. It can be helpful for folks to find the specific episode when they only can remember a guest star. I'm fairly new to this site so I don't know all of the ins and outs.--Ksu6500 (talk) 21:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Such information is trivial towards the episode. If the character is notable then the name of the person can be added inline, between brackets after the characters name. Like this "… Maggie (Kelly Rowan) …", like this is done on List of Warehouse 13 episodes or List of Covert Affairs episodes, to name some were you have edited. I haven't started on this season of Flashpoint, should just click play on the episodes but I'm busy, but if Kelly Rowan portrays the "knife-wielding woman" in the episode the summary could be changed to "When two children are abducted by a knife-wielding woman, Maggie (Kelly Rowan), Team One must quickly track them down - revealing an unexpected connection along the way." If not try expanding the description to include the character if notable to the plot. If not, there are dozens of guests and extras per episode, there is no need to have lists of trivial information about the episode in the description like guests, songs, etc.  X  eworlebi (talk) 21:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Your message regarding List of Medium episodes
Thank you for reverting my "test" of the page List of Medium episodes. It was a probably pointless since all I did was add a single space after a period. When I made the edit the page was included in Category:Pages with broken reference names. Probably because for a short period of time the tranclusion of List of Medium episodes (season 7) in List of Medium episodes was causing a ref error. It has been my experience that after such a tranclusion based ref error that saving the origional pages is needed to update the category. I have never been able to tell but simply waiting would probably work as well. My edit simply forced the category to be updated. See Categories. In any case I wrote test in the edit summary because it is polite to include an ES. 24.34.148.49 (talk) 23:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Code updates
Now proposed at Template talk:Infobox television episode. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 16:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Star Wars
Wouldn't it be best if it was worded as "followed by two sequels", which sounds quite unambiguous to me.-- The Taerkasten ( talk ) 16:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That would do it.  X  eworlebi (talk) 17:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Hellcats
Why do you keep "restoring" the article? I specifically said that once the DVD is released and there's more information to add to the overview, that we can discuss adding it. Chaos Master Chat 18:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Because you keep removing information protested by several editors. Note that you have breached WP:3RR, for which I have now warned you (a second time) and have reported you. You also have identified edits you disagree with as vandalism twice now.  X  eworlebi (talk) 18:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.     Thank you.  Chaos Master Chat 18:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you please join my discussion about Hellcats on my talk-page before reverting and before we have another edit war? Chaos Master Chat 02:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

House
I got the "copyrights material" from the FOX website which would make it public is that not right? I don't see why I got a warning... should I have put a reference there? 174.113.36.105 (talk) 12:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The entire internet is public, but the content on it is still copyrighted, unless specifically stated it is not. The message said it all, "You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images." In other words, use the sources and write your own summary, don't copy paste, for that is copyright infringement.  X  eworlebi (talk) 12:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Episode anchors
Just want to say thanks for the help and info, I appreciate it. --Muchness (talk) 13:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Face-smile.svg No problem.  X  eworlebi (talk) 12:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Avengers film project
the group is known as S.H.I.E.L.D., not "The Shield", im reverting the edit —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rio de Janiero God (talk • contribs) 18:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The reference gives the name "The Shield" for the movie, not "S.H.I.E.L.D." even when that is the name of the organization.  X  eworlebi (talk) 18:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Hellcats link
You can't unlink from those source formats. Jayy008 (talk) 12:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I just did.  →  .   X  eworlebi (talk) 12:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow, I didn't know you could do it. From what I remember when I used to use that format, it automatically hyperlinked it. That's why I abandoned it. Thank you for the help, though! Jayy008 (talk) 13:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Weird, I don't recall it ever auto linking.  X  eworlebi (talk) 13:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe I'm getting confused. I don't know I haven't used it in a long time so maybe I don't remember correctly. :/ Jayy008 (talk) 13:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The mentalist Season 3
You took down 4 episodes on these pages: The Mentalist (season 3) and List of The Mentalist episodes. The episodes you took down are listed on a few different websites. You said "not reliable sources" Is IMDB not reliable? Benvlodgi (talk) 21:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, both IMDb and epguides (which gets it's info from TVrage and TV.com) are all user-submitted websites and thus not reliable sources.  X  eworlebi (talk) 21:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * what would be a reliable source then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benvlodgi (talk • contribs) 01:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * CBS, press releases, The Futon Critic, MSN TV, news papers, interviews, etc. The obvious ones.  X  eworlebi (talk) 08:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This seems to be just my own assessment but MSN-TV is about the most unreliable out there. That site has info weeks in advance of the respective broadcaster releasing anything via press release for most every show. Where do they get it from? delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 18:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen MSN TV be wrong on episode titles.  X  eworlebi (talk) 18:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I never said wrong. Just that since there is no idea where they get the info from and it is, at least in the shows i am into, significantly before a press release for the respective episode there is no way to ascertain the source. That is where it becomes unreliable. I don't remove them where i find them but i will not use them for a reference myself. I have press access for a few shows. If MSN-TV can scoop the login-required press section of a broadcaster's website then i have a hard time believing MSN-TV is sourced to anything more than gossip, speculation, and a lot of what Wikipedia calls evil synthesis. delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 18:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Air dates
The format is American show = American original air date, British show = British original air date, Canadian show = Canadian original air date. If there is an earlier one from elsewhere (rare if it is an American show) then it gets a footnote of sorts. The mess on Human Target is a bit of a mess but the show from what i understand is made in Canada so one could argue for first broadcast in either country. As to Outlaw, yes it has a Canadian in a starring role but that is the limit of its connexion to Canada. The episode list has domestic information. I have argued quiet boldly to have American info removed from a Canadian show's episode list and conversely Outlaw is an American show and the Canadian premiere date can go in prose as i put it. Should any other episode air in Canada before the U.S. then it ought to be a footnote to that episode. Such should not be an issue as at this time the episodes are otherwise scheduled to air at the same time. The "original" in the column heading is to be domestic original air date. I watched a little A&E last night. I saw a commercial for new episodes of Criminal Minds that will be starting soon. One might think from that commercial that the show left CBS for cable first-run when really it is a commercial advertising the fifth season will be added into the syndication loop on A&E. The sixth season is still to be shown on CBS. delirious &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 18:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, original means original, otherwise it says "US/UK/… air date" as some shows unfortunately do, the only exception to that is if the episode is not the original episode, for example when dubbed in another language. Wikipedia covers a worldwide perspective and that it is made here or there should not discriminate against the rest of the world. Also, no clue what the Criminal Minds stuff has to do here since new episodes means new episodes on their network, also commercials aren't the best sources.  X  eworlebi (talk) 18:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It is predicated on the way tv show articles are crafted with principally domestic information (some people even want to remove all non-domestic info even if it is English). Almost all of them begin with a statement that "NAME is a(n) NATIONALITY GENRE television show that premiered on NETWORK on DATE." Unfortunately that issue that kept me away from Human Target is now the issue at Outlaw. Fortunately for this disagreement i don't see the show lasting too long. Once people get tired of Smits there isn't much left to the pilot.
 * I actually was on your side of this until i saw the end result and the confusing state of the list of Human Target episodes. I looked around other shows. Sometimes a 3rd or 7th season aired earlier in Canada. None of them give seasons 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, etc for US and seasons 3, 7 for Canada. It is in the prose that "this season was shown # days earlier in Canada on NETWORK" and the entire show lists U.S. air date in the column heading. That is an organised, easily understood presentation. I can honestly say that Human Target is an example of what not to do. I live in Canada and even i was wondering what the (A) was - there is no A channel available on cable where i live. Other shows to have aired a random episode or an entire season in Canada earlier than their domestic airing include Charmed, Veronica Mars, Smallville, The OC, Sons of Tucson, The L Word, Skin, Friends, Gossip Girl, How I Met Your Mother, Reunion, Doctor Who, LOST, Wonderfalls, Vampire Diaries, Jack & Bobby, The Mentalist, and a quite a few others that i am just not going to list. If the earlier air dates are mentioned you are likely to find them in prose or as a note attached to the episode.
 * I mention Criminal Minds because A&E presents the episodes as new not as new to A&E in the commercial. That is where the domestic original air date becomes relevant. The commercial is intentionally misleading to make people like my mum think the latest episodes are to be found on A&E instead of CTV or CBS. delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 20:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Most TV shows are way to [main country] centric, primarily due to the lack of reception coverage from other countries, which would be the place for international coverage. Episode lists seem to be the place were nationalistic pride is allowed and even encouraged, everybody want their show and only that country's information. That A isn't available where you live isn't really relevant, it's linked so if someone doesn't know what it is they can click the link and find out. How exactly is List of Human Target episodes confusing? It reports the original air date and the channel for clarity, don't think that dropping the channel would make it better or less. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be an TV guide and only report info that makes it a nice TV listing for that country.
 * If General Motors makes a car and release it in Europe before they do in America it would treated as such, and wouldn't be treated as a nuance and added in a side note.
 * Still failing to see how Criminal Minds is relevant here, misleading information by networks is not the issue, it already happened and it did.  X  eworlebi (talk) 21:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Examples. They have relevance even if you don't get it.
 * Original channel. Original air date. Are they not related? I dare you to make and fight for the original channel on Outlaw (TV series) to be Global since it fits your logic as applied to original air date. Some of the above named shows actually premiered in Canada before their domestic debuts. This would mean changing all mention of the premiere. If this sounds foolish then you have realised my point. I am looking for some order and you want exactness that reads as chaos.
 * That you had such issue with Human Target is because it is so not the standard practice and though silent on the last time you fought for this i am not remaining silent this time. This time i am saying i outright oppose your method. There are other ways to report the broadcast variants Look around. There are plenty to be found depending on the needs of the data. Your choice omits things. delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 10:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Naming the origins countries air date as the original air date when it is in fact not is wrong, and gives undue weight to that country, it's a form of nationalistic pride to treat correct information as a nuance just because of the point of origin. My choice does not omit things, Wikipedia is not the place to list every air date in every country, just the original one. Which is the first time the episode is released to the public. That that is not in the domestic country is sad for the people of that country but nothing more. Adding a note that the original air date is not the original air date is quite silly and leads to people adding notes for other countries, adding dates in the episode list itself and soon we'll end up with every episode list to be like List of Iron Man: Armored Adventures episodes.
 * When a band releases an album, that date is treated as the release date, even when that is not the domestic release. Later releases are normally put in the section "Release history" but the "Release date" in the infobox is still the original, meaning earliest, one.
 * Entirely irrelevant examples, as the Criminal Minds is in my opinion are irrelevant. They advertise new episodes, which are new episodes for them, but not new new episodes, which is not the case here. They broadcast new episodes after the original air date, which is also not the problem here. I don't see it as relevant to the point you're making, as none of it is applying to this; not an original air date, not an original channel; just repeats that they call new because they are new to them. Every channel in every country advertises new shows as "all new show" or "all new episodes of [show]" on there channel because they are to the people that watch the channel, and as you said to trick people into watching there network. Hell, Syfy calls shows original series, just because they're the first to broadcast it in the U.S. But this isn't about misleading advertisement, it's about what is considered the original air date.
 * What would you do at List of Human Target episodes, only list the U.S. air dates, only list the Canadian air dates, hide the channels?  X  eworlebi (talk) 11:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ironman is flag overkill and i like using flags. It does however demonstrate the confusion that would be created had i been a fan of the show, wondered where it went to, seen the list that said the episode was shown 28 August and well it isn't on today (assuming today is that day and i am going through every channel and then checking online. Conclusion, WP is wrong.). Honestly, how often do you find a show where a season is broken into three or more parts and 3 different countries claim original air date to a segment of the season? It is organised and can be easily read to make sense of why it has aired but not for me. I was however thinking something more like Law & Order | UK. As to series numbering that show is a bloody mess - see my long talk page recapitulation there for an idea - but the dates are orderly and not excessive.    2009 (UK) 2009 (CAN) . It is a British series based on an American show and it frequently is broadcast in Canada before it is transmitted by itv in the UK. There is also a column for the air date of the American episode the British one is based on. It is comprehensive, orderly, easily understood, and not quite so intense as that Ironman show. You call it an American show broadcast by Fox and then list 11/12 of the air dates from Canada. To most people that is really odd. If it were myself reading it to find out about the show i would think the article to be full of errors, maybe FOX stopped showing the series, maybe i think CTV is a new US channel owned by FOX. Being factually accurate while presentation is confusing is part of why even tv shows are now containing lines mocking the accuracy of Wikipedia.  Human Target is written to be accurate but it is not written to be understood. I honestly personally do wonder what happened to that one episode that was first shown on FOX. Why was its American broadcast before the Canadian? What happened with the Canadian broadcast? Those are questions i really have been wondering about for months now, thanks to reading the episode list and never seeing the Canadian air date and well i didn't find it on tv (i also didn't look too hard).  delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 18:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm definitely against adding more than one date as the "original" air date, to me that's just silly. Call them "UK air date" or "Canadian air date" but not "Original air date" and then not actually give the original air date. I also don't like adding multiple columns as it takes up a bunch of unnecessary space and suggest an open invitation to add a third, fourth, fifth column with air dates of the users countries choosing. To your Iron Man argument about looking for it on TV: Wikipedia is not a TV Guide, it should not be adjusted to accommodate people that use it in that way.  X  eworlebi (talk) 19:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Since you are hard core for original then abide by it. Change the original channel for Outlaw and Human Target. Those shows both premiered on networks other than what is commonly called their respective original channel. There are even references for this in the respective articles at this time.
 * Or
 * Try thinking of ways to be accurate, comprehensive within the scope set out by the rest of the article or its principal, and not confuse the reader who might not be as informed as you are.
 * Stargate flips half way through the seasons. It is a regular pattern. Still, they are Canadian-American shows and not a mention about broadcast in Canada is to be found. ABC totally abandoned Defying Gravity while CTVglobemedia didn't. Even though they all aired here the DVD still says it contains unaired episodes. Modifying the heading to country of principal broadcast when there is random or irregular exception to the broadcast schedule of the show that would otherwise make it awkward to read is the preferred method. It works very nice on Smallville, the oc, and Bones. The prose for the relevant seasons declares the earlier broadcast in Canada and the articles as a whole follow the US broadcast. delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 09:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Stargate Universe infobox image
In this edit, you alluded to 250px being a "standard image size". Where is this codified? uses the user's default thumbnail size (and does not upscale smaller images), so should be a better option in most cases. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * A width of 250px is what's used everywhere, hence standard.  X  eworlebi (talk) 08:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * .  is relatively new, and thus less-used, but "standard" implies some codification. If none exists I'll be restoring the use of   as it has multiple advantages (no upscaling, and obeying user thumbanil preferences). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No standard implies widespread use. Not everything is done in code.  X  eworlebi (talk) 08:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * This isn't productive. If you're just citing anecdotal evidence, I think we're done here. I'll be restoring the use of ; please don't revert again unless you have a better reason that "it's done everywhere", as I could point you at a hundred thousand articles than use   (not to mention several million that use  ). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you could, but for the infobox 250px is what is used, guess I'll go and ask for "codification" at Infobox television.  X  eworlebi (talk) 09:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I've replied over there. I'll wait for people to weigh in over on the template talk page. Sorry if I came across as harsh. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Numbers
3.0 is the same as 3.00, why do you keep changing it? Jayy008 (talk) 16:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not, I already told you why here.  X  eworlebi (talk) 16:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * My bad, I thought the source said 3 million viewers as prose. Jayy008 (talk) 16:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Spartacus: Gods of the Arena infobox
Out of curiosity, why can't the "number of seasons" and "number of episodes" parameters be completed when sources indicate the series will consist of six episodes? Feel free to respond here and I will check back later. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Because it's always the number of aired episodes. The doc for the template says number of episodes produced but this gives a bunch of problems, mostly lacking sources and sources that are unclear if production is actually finished. It sometimes comes up and the number of aired episodes/ seasons is what's done, guess the doc never got updated. Fairly sure that production hasn't finished yet, taking it started only in August, so that's not really the issue. On a side note, shouldn't this series be treated as a mini-series, rather than a full series?  X  eworlebi (talk) 21:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response and explanation. Perhaps Gods of the Arena should be treated as a mini-series, but what's the difference? Are there different templates to use, etc.? It is a little confusing, but it is clearly its own off-shoot series from Blood and Sand. Hopefully additional editors will contribute to the article and it will expanded appropriately as we get closer to the premiere and the show is in the press more. Thanks again! -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Besides different categories I believe only the use of Infobox television film rather than Infobox television should be used with a mini-series.  X  eworlebi (talk) 21:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. I went ahead and replaced the infobox with the one suggested, and updated the categories. Not sure if there are additional mini-series related categories that would qualify, but they can always be added later. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Italic
Are the headers supposed to be italic? Please show me a guideline. Jayy008 (talk) 23:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It says so at WP:ITALICTITLE, but I just saw the not a week old RfC which ended in no consensus so don't use it. I was just starting to undo my edits when you posted here.  X  eworlebi (talk) 23:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, right. Got ya. Thanks for the reply, though. Jayy008 (talk) 23:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Wait, I'm really confused now, I think they should be italic.  X  eworlebi (talk) 23:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, for a start, I don't get all the different parts of that table on the discussion. I thought it would be a simple yes or no, but you're right, it's confusing. Maybe ask somebody? Jayy008 (talk) 23:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I read the final line, which ended in "I have updated the policy accordingly" which was a week ago. makes it conclusive, that it went from don't do it, to do it after the poll closed.   X  eworlebi (talk) 23:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * When i thought it was just Flashpoint you were doing this to i was all set to revert you on it but then i looked and OMFG this is way more than just you. And then you flip-flopped on doing it. I read it. I basically contest the closing. Looks to me more like indecision than go-for-it. Though i completely disagree with this i thank you for bringing it to my attention. Too often (as is the case here) things are not known of until one sees the results of some discussion somewhere applied to where they edit. Then (like now for me) it is too late to matter. Though i left my note anyway. It is outside the archive but surely someone will contest my commenting once i knew of the issue since i was too late to be counted.


 * You might be interested or/and amused by my counter proposal to put all things in quotation marks in articles in quotation marks when they appear as or in titles on the same principle that italics was proposed and failed-then-passed. delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 04:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't like it either. Maybe we should bring it up if there wasn't a true consensus? Jayy008 (talk) 20:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It was a 70% in favor. You can comment here.  X  eworlebi (talk) 20:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Well I guess that's good enough. 60% or more is fine to me. Jayy008 (talk) 21:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)