User talk:TAnthony/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

File:Leiabikini.jpg

I'm not dead set against having the image, but I thought I'd elaborate why my gut says we don't need it in Princess Leia. I feel that critical NFC review is part of article improvement, instead of something of a buzzkill.

WP:NFCC#3 means, in addition to the number of non-free images in an article, the number uses of non-free images across the whole encyclopedia. It is a pretty standard outcome at WP:FFD to remove a non-free file from a section that links to a main article that features the image.

Another concern is WP:NFCC#8. Illustrating a key point isn't enough to meet NFCC#8. The only acceptable uses are when a) the image itself is the subject of critical sourced commentary (not applicable here, as the section discusses the bikini, not the image thereof) or b) when the image is used to identify a subject of the article. This is also problematic, because the subject of this article is Leia and not her bikini, and we already have an image to identify her. (see WP:NFC##Meeting the contextual significance criterion) As NFCC#8 says: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" - again, that topic is Leia, not the bikini, and not having an image of the bikini certainly isn't detrimental to understanding who or what Leia is. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 05:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Of course I see your point, and I strip images from articles myself when they are obviously decorative or excessive, but it is definitely annoying when a large article with but two non-free images (one for primary identification and one for a subtopic) is nitpicked while there are plenty of comic book articles with many more images that somehow are justified. That said, there are two basic facts that have me willing to drop it to go with you on this: 1) as you say, there is a main article that features the image, and 2) there's a great Commons image that can illustrate the iconic costume for those not headed to that other article. — TAnthony^Talk 06:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Luna: New Moon at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 09:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Skywalker family tree

Spoiler comment

I think I'm in over my head with trying to edit the family tree by including the marriage of Leia and Han, as well as Ben Solo as the their son. Would you like to take care of this? DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 06:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

@DarthBotto:  Done. If I'm including Han and Leia's expanded universe kids though, I should probably add Mara Jade and Ben Skywalker.— TAnthony^Talk 19:56, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done and  Done. — TAnthony^Talk 20:31, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Television section

I created a new television section in Star Wars sources and analogues which could use some expansion. Perhaps those refs I put on the talk page could come in handy? Your assistance is welcomed. Anyways I'm going to bed soon. Spent too much time working on that....--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 06:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

:-)

Since you placed the poster of a television serial into the film section as well the mention of Buck Rogers (another TV franchise) into the film section, I decided that I'm going to merge the two into a "film & television" section. I'd request that you keep working on that section. Somebody pointed out the history where Lucas borrows from Ancient Rome & Greece which is reflected in Star Wars. Yeah ancient history is probably the biggest influence on Star Wars. Work on the film & television part and I'll develop the history part. If you want you can keep checking with the documentary for help [1] Thanks man --Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 04:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

The merge was a good idea, but you seem confused: Flash Gordon was a comic and then FILM serial, Buck Rogers was also a comic and a film serial, and a TV serial decades later. I hadn't noticed the Flash Gordon caption so I fixed it.— TAnthony^Talk 05:00, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

OK sure that's fine. I think we should also make good use of this [2] I never knew of it and learned a lot of things, but I still was saying a lot of the same things all along as the documentary.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 09:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Contact me!

Hi TAnthony!

I'm a reporter working on a story about the Han Solo Wikipedia page. Think you might shoot me an email? daniel.duray@gmail.com. Would love to tell you more over email.

Thanks and happy holidays!

Dan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:814C:1A00:5983:3C9E:A198:3668 (talk) 22:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Poe Dameron - The Café de Flore meeting that changed all

Hello Anthony,

Thanks for your rewriting of the Poe Dameron article. However, I do believe that Abrams changed the fate of the character after seeing Isaac a little bit reluctuant to accept the role since he was going to die -- and that's what I wanted to stress in my contribution. Apparently Wookipedia has the same interpretation of the GQ article. Therefore I think it would be appropriate to keep this detail in the current version of the article. Best regards Matt-san (talk) 12:53, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! I read the interview, and while it's possible, maybe even likely, that meeting Isaac in person prompted the change, that's entirely interpretation. Isaacs doesn't suggest as much, Abrams isn't interviewed. Wookiepedia is another wiki, with no content regulation compared to Wikipedia, you're reading the personal interpretation of another editor like yourself who has read the interview that way. I'm interested in a more respectable news piece like http://www.denofgeek.us/movies/star-wars/251503/star-wars-the-force-awakens-poe-dameron-had-a-different-fate-in-early-drafts which is reporting on the GQ piece but does not mention this aspect at all.— TAnthony^Talk 13:28, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Could you add to my page?

I created a page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mythological_or_fantastic_beings_in_contemporary_fiction , but it needs more contributions. If you'd wander by and add any series you can remember enough of, I'd appreciate it. Tamtrible (talk) 21:28, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The Force

Thank you, big time, for all the cleanup work you did at The Force (Star Wars)! It already had some issues with being too in-universe when an anon recently began bloating it to ridiculous levels. I reverted the bloat twice, and left a note on the talk page, but was reverted each time without any attempt to address the issue. I had essentially given up, and removed the article from my watchlist, when I saw that you modified the redirect fromDark side (Star Wars) and checked out the article. Much better! I'm putting it back on my watchlist to help ensure that it isn't reverted without comment. If the anon does try that again, I'll request page protection for the edit warring. oknazevad (talk) 04:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Yeah I was tempted to just revert all the recent crufty adds, but then decided to just rewrite what was there in case anything valuable had been added. It's still not perfect but yes, much better! Thanks again.— TAnthony^Talk 04:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, still a few too many examples; in some cases it tries to give every example of something, especially in the section on "May the Force be with you", where it lists, with details, every time the line is spoken in all seven films. That's unneeded. I may trim that section. oknazevad (talk) 04:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh yes actually, I haven't touched the Quotes section at all.— TAnthony^Talk 04:27, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

2016

Hi Anthony, I don't want to get into an edit war with you. Of all the editors who have worked on Star Wars pages, I found yours the most helpful and I hope it stays that way. I also agree with your point on the usage of the word "however" in Technology in Star Wars and if you can substitute it with a better word, I'd welcome it.

I explained on the talk page of BB-8 my reasons for adding a less in-universe link to a discussion about the dynamics about the subject; whereas most of the links, including the wookiepedia one are in-universe. You are free to express your reasons on the talk page.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 23:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Technology in Star Wars, again

See what you can do to improve the sections on cybernetics and computers & other artificial intelligence. I'm going to bed.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 07:56, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh and you might need this. Good luck--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 07:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

The content of that article is quite good. I was trying to copyedit and improve the prose, and some other small tidying. I'm surprised the whole edit was reverted, and none of the changes were included. I don't understand the reason given for the revert either.

I've added a longer comment saying the same to the article Talk page Talk:Technology_in_Star_Wars#Corrections_and_copyedit, as I think it is best that discussions of an article are kept with the article. It may be some time before I can revisit the discussion but I appreciate your input. -- 109.79.102.243 (talk) 01:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Luna: New Moon

Materialscientist (talk) 22:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Award

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For all the additional edits you made to multiple Star Wars pages alongside mine without being told to do so. They couldn't have been better without your input. I found at least 90% of your edits to be positive. Keep it up. Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 22:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! — TAnthony^Talk 02:58, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Poe Dameron

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

First Order

I used info from the Visual Dictionary and Aftermath tie-in book, which are similarly cited on the Wookieepedia page.--24.228.171.252 (talk) 01:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I've restored the content and cited those two books, it's important to source this kind of stuff. Aftermath doesn't seem to be cited in the Wookieepedia page but it takes place in that time period and I'm assuming you've read it.— TAnthony^Talk 02:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Ack, yes with Aftermath -- most of this was in the Visual Dictionary anyway (I don't have it in hand, I'm going by Wookiepedia's citations - it was just a quick touch-up to the article on here).--24.228.171.252 (talk) 07:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Song of ice and fire character pages

Back from my hiatus, and it seems like there is work to be done. I noticed the new character pages sprouting up, I have added notability, plot, and references tags to most of them (though there have been so many I might have missed a few). I have read several of them already, and while they have citations on who cast them, the awards they have won, and the ASOIAF book references, none of them cite a single third party source that provides any analysis, which I think is a pretty clear Wikipedia:Notability problem. Like I did with Jaime, I think the way forward here is to revert back the most un-notable articles (Bronn, Robert, Robb to name a few) to the List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters and explain on the users talk page why. The others I think we can leave the tags up and see if anyone improves the articles by finding third party, non book, non casting citations. If not, back to redirects they go.

Eric the fever (talk) 00:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, a single editor created about a dozen articles in a couple of days, mostly from material he grabbed from List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters and List of Game of Thrones characters. I was hoping he would start doing some actual work on them, but that hasn't happened yet. No one has really objected, and there's no real harm in letting these articles for major characters hang around for awhile, so I wasn't in the mood to create too much of a stink. But if you're back, then maybe we can get into it. He has been clever enough, though, to add some citations, and while the articles need a lot of work, something like Robb Stark has enough basics not not be redirected right away (in my opinion).— TAnthony^Talk 00:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Fixed a typo in my last post, more like rewrote a sentence. Question though, the redirect on the Jaime article was removed. I figured that one was easiest because the notability, citations, and plot tags had been up for about six months and no one had improved the article since then, or even posted on the talk page.

Eric the fever (talk) 03:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to jump into a discussion on someone else's talk page, but I agree that at least some of these articles should be reverted back to redirects until someone can write versions that adequately demonstrate separate notability for those characters. There doesn't seem to be a lot of interest in the grunt work of finding quality citations (certainly I'm not up to it at the moment), and so we end up with scads of plot summary and a couple sources that verify the actor who plays the character and the fact that they've been well-reviewed. For example: I think Robb is quite possibly a notable character based on his increased role in the TV show. But as it stands four of his article's six citations are for the fact that Madden played the character, one links to a puff interview with Madden from Entertainment Weekly to support the claim that Madden's performance was well-reviewed, and one makes the useful point that TV Robb is more important than book Robb but links to a page that no longer exists (but may be archived somewhere). This is an issue in ASOIAF/GOT articles: the publicity cycle for the TV show generates a lot of third-party coverage that's low-quality and ephemeral but can be plugged in to create a references section that gives the impression of a well-sourced, well-rounded article. It's gonna take some careful editorial judgment and debate to decide which characters are notable enough to warrant separate articles, and which can be handled with a paragraph on the characters page. Brendan Moody (talk) 23:39, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Glad to have you comment, the ASOIAF character articles have obviously been an issue since the show started, as (like any popular show) the fanboys/girls want to chronicle the plot in detail but have no interest in anything else. Like I said above, I didn't want to revert all of AffeL's articles and have to singlehandedly manage the situation, but with others involved I'm on board. Obviously I worked a lot on Tyrion, Jon and Ned, and I've collected some research on several other characters, but haven't had a chance to seriously commit to others yet. I intended for my next one to be Daenerys, but that one is decent for now so I will probably do some work on Jaime and Cersei. You are correct that most of the other new ones, as notable as the characters may be, are fine as entries in the list until someone cares enough to create a real article.— TAnthony^Talk 23:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I know I have seen people do in depth analysis on Cersei's character arc, Jaime I haven't seen as much. I think the Daario, Davos, Oberyn, and Varys articles can be reverted to redirect with a kind explanation as to why. Eric the fever (talk) 02:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Kylo Ren

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Technology in Star Wars

I've finished editing the article for the time being save for minor edits and left you a message on the talk page. Look at it at some time. I'll also post some useful links possible for use as citations. Good night.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 05:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Infobox image question

from User talk:Magioladitis (last comment)

Hey, so I spent a lot of time emptying Category:Infobox book image param needs updating last year, and more recently Category:Infobox football biography image param needs updating. I mostly used AWB to navigate faster, and made the changes to bare filename manually. In any case, I was assuming this kind of infobox image syntax maintenance category was in use more widely, but now I see it is not. So I'm wondering, do you think it's appropriate to add this function to other infoboxes like {{Infobox television}}, which is set up for bare filenames but is used in a lot of articles with the "old" linked syntax? I guess what I'm getting at is whether or not this kind of thing should be systematically corrected across Wikipedia, along the lines of deprecated parameters. And that would tell me if it's really appropriate to be using AWB to do it. What do you think?— TAnthony^Talk 17:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

TAnthony you are right. Ideally, we should use bare filenames everywhere! Thank you very much for all the effort! :) -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

No problem, it's one of those ongoing housekeeping tasks that editors like you and I find soothing, right? LOL. So are you able to update {{Infobox television}} to identify "bad" image syntax and place the articles in a category like Category:Infobox television image param needs updating? Moving forward I can try to copy your work and implement it on other templates that are not protected. Or I'll ask you again haha. Thanks in advance.— TAnthony^Talk

@Frietjes: -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

TAnthony, now updated (and merged with the football biography infobox) to create Category:Pages using deprecated image syntax. Frietjes (talk) 13:37, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

That is awesome, thanks! It's not as populated as I expected so I will probably be coming to you soon with other infoboxes LOL. Does it pull images which are unlinked but contain image: or file: prefixes? Thanks again.— TAnthony^Talk 16:57, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your follow up effort after I did the initial work of separating Southern US from the rest, which was only goal. Hmains (talk) 23:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Maz Kanata

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Maz Kanata

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Will Horton

Given your extensive work throughout Wikipedia, and throughout articles related to soap operas, I figured you'd want to be pointed out to a problem happening at Will's page, and its talk page. One user has made mass-changes to the Will article that both myself and Jester66 (talk · contribs) have reverted back to its original edits; the user has insisted on edit-warring these issues, and has ignored their talk page discussion to continue these edits. I've made a report for their violation of the three-revert rule but, I don't know if anything will be done about it. Figured you'd be a nice match for this discussion and problem. livelikemusic talk! 14:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Half Barnstar
	I feel you deserve this barnstar for stepping in and helping resolve the edit war between Aliveness Cascade and Livelikemusic and for offering your further help to cooperate with Aliveness to make Will Horton a better article. P.S: I am a big fan of all your Dune work! Fritzmann2002 20:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@Fritzmann2002: Haha thank you, on both counts!— TAnthony^Talk 16:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Episode VIII template

Do you think it might be a little early to have that Episode VIII template? The first six episodes' templates were created after the films were released and I created the Episode VII template after there were already accompanying articles created. I won't nominate it for deletion or anything, just that I'm unsure of it. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 23:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I would not have created it myself, but now that the Star Wars Episode VIII exists I don't think having the template is disruptive. It's just sort of lame because all that can go in it are the characters LOL.— TAnthony^Talk 23:57, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh shit, my Wikipedia must have glitched out, because it was only showing one edit for the template as being attributed to you. Damn glitch! DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 00:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I moved it to the correct name but didn't create it.— TAnthony^Talk 06:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Re-direct categories

I've been removing categories from re-directs 'cause I assumed they were probably just leftover from when a less-than-stellar page got taken down. I see now you added some of them intentionally. Should I be leaving them then? (Using Little Angel Girl as an example:) My thought process is that, since it re-directs to this page and that page is already part of the same category, it just seemed like added emphasis for something that's already there regardless (and, like I said, I just assumed they were leftovers). Anyhow, just curious. Thanks in advance.Cebr1979 (talk) 02:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Also... Why is your talk page showing up as a 'Passions' character? LolCebr1979 (talk) 03:30, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Well it looks like I tagged that redirect before I knew about {{R from fictional character}}, which is used to place character redirects into work-specific maintenance categories, like {{R from fictional character|Dynasty|Morell, Caress}} places Caress Morell into Category:Dynasty character redirects to lists. So Little Angel Girl shouldn't be placed directly into Category:Passions characters. Before this template it was common to put unique redirects in character categories; I personally liked it for navigation purposes but I believe there's a rule somewhere that it's now frowned upon.

You also shouldn't get into the habit of removing Redirect templates like {{R to list entry}}, they assign redirects to maintenance categories and there is (I believe) at least one that applies to any redirect you could come across. Obviously {{R from fictional character}} would replace {{R to list}} in Little Angel Girl but I think you know what I mean.

When it comes to other categories like Category:Fictional characters introduced in 1999 or Category:Fictional princesses, historically we categorized notable redirects that had a potential to become articles, were list entries, or otherwise belonged for proper navigation, but Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects seems to be a bit vague on that now.

And you tagged me in that category LOL, I fixed it.— TAnthony^Talk 03:48, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh! How did I do that (I believe you, I just wanna know so I don't do it again - it certainly wasn't intentional, sorry about that)?Cebr1979 (talk) 04:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

You noted the category here but neglected to put a colon before the word Category, like this [[:Category:Passions characters]]. That makes it a link rather than putting the page into the category. I added the colons to your comment in my last edit. ;)— TAnthony^Talk 04:48, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, crap! Never knew that about the colons! ...Now I wonder how many other people I've done that too? Ah, well, at least I know now... Cheers!Cebr1979 (talk) 04:53, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I've stopped removing the {{R to list entry}} from re-directs I find in categories, however, I'm really not interested in putting them back to the ones I've removed them from (I didn't know at the time I did it so... meh). If you think I should, let me know and I will (but probably not today).Cebr1979 (talk) 07:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Gay literature's first relatively happy ending

Perhaps you have something to contribute at Talk:The_Price_of_Salt#The_Price_of_Salt_.28lesbian_novel.29_vs._Maurice_.28gay_novel.29 Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:52, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Marital names

Just re-read it... everyone loves getting rid of marital names...Cebr1979 (talk) 02:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Yikes-a-rooney! You're pretty close (even closer than me) to breaking the WP:3RR. At least I've offered links to a talk... you've offered nothing and it's not like they didn't see through you last time... Cebr1979 (talk) 09:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Your name change in the Tina Lord lead remains the same, I merely restored the citations you removed to other areas of the article where they were used. My subsequent edits had nothing to do with the character's name in the lead. The recurring infobox and character name discussions are excruciating, I don't really want to bother with that.— TAnthony^Talk 12:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Could you help with a table update?

If you remember enough about the vampires in the Kitty Norville books, I'm trying to add them to the ginormous list of vampire traits in folklore and fiction ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_vampire_traits_in_folklore_and_fiction ), but I don't remember most of the bits. (if the giant tables intimidate you, there's a spot on the talk page for listing details and letting others add them to the actual tables) Tamtrible (talk) 06:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

"unsupported Infobox award parameter"

Regarding this edit, how is that "Year" parameter unsupported if it yields "First awarded"? The "Date" parameter isn't really appropriate for the content there. Lapadite (talk) 12:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, that run was to remove other parameters but along the way I fixed some other errors, like moving info from |date= (current ceremony date) to |year= (first awarded) and vice versa in a handful of instances, as appropriate. You are correct though, that one should not have been changed, sorry about that.— TAnthony^Talk 13:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Edward Perry Warren

I invite you to ongoing RM discussion. --George Ho (talk) 01:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Another Star Wars article

Can you help with this? User:NadirAli/Star Wars - Science Fair. The article needs more references. I've put a friendly search tool template on the talk page to help dig out more sources. See what you can do to get the article more coverage to publish it. Cheers.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 02:35, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

BB-8 article

You have no idea how much I hate getting into a content conflict with you; especially on Star Wars content. You are probably the second largest contributor to Star Wars pages after myself besides the movies. You've taken a great workload off of me regarding Star Wars pages. The reason I disagree with you on the BB-8 article is that the video is on how the droid works, so it should go in the concept section. Videos like this demo would be better suited for the merchandising section, but I figured that since I already put that video in the external links of Technology in Star Wars, I thought we could have something different. That's why I opted to put it in the section about the droid and not about the merchandising.

About the columns link, I don't think references that are under a hundred need up to three columns. I use a macbook bro and it does indeed feel a little wide on my screen. I think two columns are good enough. Once we get over a hundred citations, we can consider increasing he columns. But I'd rather discuss it rather than edit war with you. However (oh that word!) I don't want there to be a weeks long time gap before we respond to one another's messages. I sure hope we can sort this soon (as if you should be in conflict with me over something so small in the first place). Goodnight.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 05:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

The video is about the physics and design of the toy, period. This has nothing to do with the film character. I appreciate you wanting to add something "different", but it still has to go in the appropriate section. And also, there is no harm in having the same external link in multiple articles if it helps illustrate multiple topics. Many people may read BB-8 without ever reading Technology in Star Wars, and vice versa.

As far as columns go: you can't just make up a "2 columns until 100 citations" rule. 30em sets a specific width for each column that will adapt to one column or two or five based on individual screen sizes, windows and preferences. For general readability we should be accommodating as possible to a wide array of readers. Two columns may be too many for someone on a small tablet with a large font, two may be too few on a large screen (we take our style cues from physical publishing much of the time). Dynamic is a better use of space, keeping reference sections shorter from top to bottom in most cases. I don't think I remember ever seeing a Featured article with fixed columns. I randomly chose Royal Gold Cup, Nikki and Paulo and Albatross, each have under 100 citations and use a dynamic setting. Maybe you can find some that don't, but I think they would be the minority.— TAnthony^Talk 05:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Well you have a point, except I don't agree the same thing should go on multiple pages when we've got a ton of diverse images/videos and diversifying it improves the quality of the content. There's tons of BB-8 videos, why use the same one on multiple pages? Anyways nice talking to you. And besides anyone who reads on BB-8 might have an interest in Star Wars and will probably read Technology in Star Wars at some point. For now I'll stay away on concentrate on other stuff. See what you can do to improve the article on that book to help get it published.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 20:38, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

PS no the articles as you describe are not in the minority. Most articles I've come across are what I described them as. I was just editing Lal Masjid Operation and it was in two columns.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 01:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I said FEATURED article (the highest level of quality), which that article is not, and the citations are a mess.— TAnthony^Talk 01:29, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

True but that article is still amongst the good article statues.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 01:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Well it obviously didn't reach Good status with the citations the way they are, so it has fallen on hard times and I don't think it should be used as an example of anything. But Good is still a far cry from Featured, and my point was that if we are aspiring to make the best articles we should follow the example of the best articles, which by their very nature meet all the criteria, fulfill all the requirements and follow all the rules and policies. And I'm sorry if I sometimes sound condescending when I respond to you, but I sometimes don't understand your way of thinking. — TAnthony^Talk 01:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jerusalem Prize, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Palestine. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:36, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Under Five

Sir, I created the article was I was much greener wikipedian. I understand WP:COMMON , so either I ask you to chop this whole part of the section :

"According to AFTRA union rules a speaking part exceeding five lines in a day triggers a substantial rise in pay. To remain an under-five the total number of words in the five lines or less must be below 50. Under-five roles have therefore been an integral consideration in script development, especially in regards to episodic budgeting. An Under-Five, however, need not have any spoken lines at all provided they are spoken to in furtherance of the plot, as in addressing a police officer, or a nurse for assistance."

or add a citation needed tag. It is irrational to cherry pick like you and others have done. If you do not chop the section I have in quotes I'll do it myself. Regards. W.G.

Wlmg (talk) 14:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

As you've probably noticed, I cleaned up the article a but, there was a lot of OR/Editor POV-ish phrasing and obviously the data was out of date.— TAnthony^Talk 17:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

The Force talk page

"It's a bit frustrating that you still insist on adding this kind of material when I have tried explaining to you some of these same content concepts in regards to your edits to Technology in Star Wars, Star Wars sources and analogues and other articles (I just discovered Physics and Star Wars). You present your own opinions, observations and topic summaries as fact with no direct support from citations. If you think you know what you're doing better than EEMIV and I do, I encourage you to nominate any of these articles for Good article status and see what kind of assessment you get."

I also just discovered this comment. I'd be very interested in to know where that's coming from. Where did you see me inserting "my opinions" un-sourced in Physics and Star Wars (or any of the other articles for that matter). I'd be very interested to know.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 02:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I've responded here, thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 14:51, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Ahsoka Tano#Recent edits

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Ahsoka Tano#Recent edits. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:11, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

You question my sources?

You seem to want to cross-examine my sources. Can I ask you where they contradict the texts of my edits? [3] page 130

I'll paste more, wait.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 04:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

[4] page 157.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 04:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

A little help

Por favor. I suppose I'll fire up something on the talk page in a bit. *sigh* --EEMIV (talk) 19:12, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Darth Vader#Appearances section

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Darth Vader#Appearances section. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:09, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Images

Thanks Anthony, I tried to get the copyright right but obviously couldn't! Thanks for the help :)--Penpalthe (talk) 21:20, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

MOS:DATERET

FTR, you probably shouldn't have done this under MOS:DATERET. It's less clear cut in this case, as there really wasn't a "clearly established" (ref) date format at Brittany Underwood. But the earliest ref in the article used ISO dates for 'accessdates', and under MOS:DATERET that's the format that should have been used for the other refs. It's generally not a good idea to go against MOS:DATERET unless there is clear consensus to change (ref) date formats. FWIW. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:40, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm familiar with MOS:DATERET, and it seems more like you went against it by changing four citations in this edit. I believe there is definitely a "clearly established" date format. The first dated citation added in 2012 (!) may have used ISO dates, but pretty much every citation added since then did not, so as the article has been noticeably improved, it "has evolved using predominantly one format". It's not as if the citations were evenly split. I suppose we can argue both sides of the policy but I've never seen someone change the majority of an article's cite dates on a technicality.— TAnthony^Talk 20:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, I followed what MOS:DATERET says: "The date format chosen by the first major contributor in the early stages of an article should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page." It looks like the first ref added used ISO dates, thus that establishes the date format that should be used. I agree that it's less clear in this case because later ref date formats were all over the place. But a Talk page discussion about it would have been nice (I prob. would have agreed to a change after a discussion). Just sayin'. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:10, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

And I am saying that there was no "date format chosen by the first major contributor in the early stages of an article", the citation in question was added by an editor who contributed nothing else to the article before or since. And before you suggest that as the first editor to use a date this constitutes the "first major contributor", that perspective only applies when "an article has shown no clear sign of which format is used", which was not the case. Look, I'm not trying to beat a dead horse and I appreciate your work making date formats consistent within articles. I just think you should have changed the two ISOs rather than the four standard. Thanks! — TAnthony^Talk 21:32, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Dynasty page

Why do you keep deleting my edits to the Dynasty TV page? Why can I not put the link to the Nolan Miller fashion blogsite? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NMC521 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. As I noted in my edit summary, a blog is an inappropriate link per WP:ELNO. Your other section about Nolan Miller and fashion was completely unsourced and full of your opinion. I was actually just looking for citations to add some fashion-related material. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 19:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@NMC521: Nolan Miller and fashion are covered at Dynasty (1981 TV series)#Commercial tie-ins, if you have sources with additional information, let me know and I can help you add them appropriately.— TAnthony^Talk 19:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Knightfall

The image with the logo includes the actual Knightfall logo (recreated by me), and juxtaposed on an image from sword training class featuring actor Tom Cullen (preparing for the shoot to start). Any way we can use this? VsanoJ (talk) 19:22, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

@VsanoJ: here are a lot of issues at play, the first being that we are not supposed to maniuplate non-free images except for cropping and resizing (and perhaps brightness/clarity). Adding a logo to an existing image is not acceptable. The Cullen image on its own is not useful to identify the series since you can't even see his face, and since it's not what is actually being used for the logo, it would be considered "decorative". I'd say a full-size version of your recreation of the logo text would be great, because if the image only consists of simple geometric shapes or text, then it does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection. File:LairLogo.jpg is a similar example. I would just be concerned about the sword in the logo and how it is designed.— TAnthony^Talk 20:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I can upload just the logo later. Another question. The lead director and the writers all sate on social media they are working on the show. I guess that isnot good enough sources...or are they? VsanoJ (talk) 22:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't necessarily doubt their statements, but "self-serving" claims are usually avoided per WP:SELFPUB, especially since there aren't other sources at the moment. The writer/director info is relatively minor and can wait until episodes air. As far as the logo, just make sure you are creating the sword from scratch and not copyrighted clip art, and do you have a source for the original so no one can challenge that what you upload is a) your version and b) a replica of what the show is actually using?— TAnthony^Talk 22:20, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok. Actress Sabrina Bartlett has posted the front page of her script with the logo clearly visible. The font is clearly Trajan Pro, and I since I work in Adobe programs all day long, drawing a similar sword isn't that hard (I can probably make it even a bit closer....I hope :-) https://www.instagram.com/p/BG92IFsQSBM/?taken-by=sabrinabartlett&hl=en Any other thoughts or helpful hints? VsanoJ (talk) 22:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again. Do you now why my recreated Knightfall logo is so blurry, once displayed on Wikipedia? The DPI is fine, so I wonder what I did wrong? I would be grateful for any input VsanoJ (talk) 01:42, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes that's weird, and I'm not sure why it's doing that but it may have something to do with the size reduction in the infobox. Maybe try uploading a larger sized version over the current one over the current one?

Tarly and Bolton

Hi. Have you seen the recently created family trees of houses Tarly and Bolton? Actually it seems really ridiculous to have these two family trees here on Wikipedia. House Tarly isn't a prominent house like the others to have a separate family tree and house Bolton is pretty small. What do you think? Should we ask the administrators to delete them? Keivan.f^Talk 22:58, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree, a primary use for the trees is navigation rather than the trivia of familial relations among fictional characters, and the Ramsey tree only contains links to two actual articles, the Tarly tree only one. I would boldly redirect both but I'm sure the AffeL, at least, would object. Do you think it's worth a discussion at the Wikiproject level before going to TfD?— TAnthony^Talk 00:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Index of Dune-related articles listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Index of Dune-related articles. Since you had some involvement with the Index of Dune-related articles redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Stefan2 (talk) 18:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Bloodline

Great work (the article, I mean) (but the book is good, too). --EEMIV (talk) 18:42, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Ha thanks, I actually have more to do with it using some citations I've collected, just have to find the time ;) .— TAnthony^Talk 18:47, July 1, 2016

Dark Shadows

I am trying to send this message to tAnthony. You appear to have removed an edit I made to the Dark Shadows Wikipedia entry three times in the last 24 hours. If it is you, can you please explain the reason to me. There is no doubt in my mind that the Judah Zachery story was inspired/influenced by H. P. Lovecraft's novella, The Case of Charles Dexter Ward. This in turn, was inspired (as was the the Dark Shadows storyline) by Hawthorne's The House of the Seven Gables. I have read both books. Have you? Please explain yourself. Ettubrutusad Ettubrutusad (talk) 21:34, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. As I explained in my edit summary and my comments on your talk page, it is not appropriate for an editor to insert their own opinions or observations into an article, per WP:original research and other POV rules. It may seem obvious to you or me that this storyline is inspired by the novella, but as editors we cannot say so. We need to provide a citation for a reliable third party source (like a book or magazine article) that makes this observation, or connects these works. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 21:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for the explanation. This whole process is very new to me as you probably noticed, and I appreciate your description of the role of wiki editors.I am just starting to learn how to navigate through this maze, andI did not see your earlier comments. That said, I have to wonder where does editing begin and end. As I review the Dark Shadows entry, for example, I see that in the early summary of the show, it is described as having heroic adventures and adventurous music. These descriptions may have sources, but they are just plain wrong . Ettubrutusad (talk) 12:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Beaufort, Blaenau Gwent

I'm interested in your de-linking of "common place" names in this article.

Is it possible that what you have done just might relate to the view from your personal culture and geographic location?

Best wishes, Eddaido (talk) 03:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

@Eddaido: Anything is possible, which de-links in my edit are you disagreeing with? I think Germany, France, Japan and the US are among the most basic, well-known countries in the world, especially to people reading English Wikipedia, which is what we're dealing with.— TAnthony^Talk 14:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

You remind me of the man from USA who, when I asked how he liked Hawaii, told me Hawaii was the entrance to the Pacific. It happened we were in the Pacific, where I live, and for Oceania (which is rather bigger than North America) it is an exit from the Pacific. Do you see what I am trying to say? It depends who you are writing for doesn't it and I seems to me you write for your immediate neighbours. Eddaido (talk) 23:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely Fabulous

Hello.

Regarding your revert of my additions to {{Absolutely Fabulous}}, and your edit summary, is there a guideline for that? Where can I find it?

Regards

HandsomeFella (talk) 19:17, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your message! That's a fair question, I usually cite policies when I can in my edit summary. I know this is covered at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Navigation:

WikiProject consensus is against including actor templates since not all actors have substantial appearances in all their films and since multiple actors in a film would overpopulate the bottom of a film article with actor templates regardless of role prominence.

It may also be noted elsewhere, since while this prohibition is specifically mentioning individual actor templates that list their individual works, you should not be able find a film or TV nav template anywhere that includes cast. I think this follows the same argument, that listing every cast member in a film or TV series in the template would quickly make the template crowded and unwieldy. I should note that this section also allows for directors to have templates, and conventionally this has extended to writers as well, and some other notable positions.— TAnthony^Talk 19:44, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Star Wars wikipedia project

Oh now I get it! Thanks.

We assume everything is cannon Except for the Legends Brand, whom we specify as not canon!

My suggestion is that

Star Wars comics article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars_(comics) should be split into 2 articles:

-Star Wars comics -Star Wars comics (Legends)

Same with the Star Wars books article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Star_Wars_books -Star Wars books -Star Wars books (Legends)

The purpose of doing this is so the main Star Wars tab can look like this:

Films Televison Books Comics

That way the Star Wars Canon, becomes more easier to follow on Wikkipedia! I would split the articles myself but I'm new at this I don't know how to do it

What do you think?

Rosvel92 (talk) 01:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)rosvel92

I think the only reason to separate these lists would be if they are too long and difficult to navigate, but as there are relatively few "canon" entries, splitting would not be advantageous. The problem with your way of thinking is that canonicity is not an aspect we use to categorize like they do at Wookieepedia, check out the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Wars#Canon language and see if you follow.— TAnthony^Talk 01:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I understand, but I do feel we should try to keep everything the sections separated within the same article. Well at least we should try to write everything separated within different sections. Rosvel92 (talk) 04:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)rosvel92

Separated perhaps, but how depends on the article. You are taking "canon" to be a separate, overly important thing. It is a very in-universe concept. In particular, the Star Wars (comics) article is about publications from a real-world perspective, not storylines, so "canon" only has its place as a historical development in publication and branding. Most of the "important" Star Wars articles are already separated canon vs Legends without adding an in-universey "Canon" heading that gives the concept more importance. I understand where you're coming from but I think we should see more discussion and consensus before you make these sweeping changes. I'm not the only editor who has reverted you recently. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 04:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for this. I've been watching the article balloon the last few days and've been too preoccupied with real life to wade in. I might have a quiet weekend and'll try to offer some additional contributions. --EEMIV (talk) 21:49, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

AWB issue

Greetings... On The Bright Side (album) AWB changed "[[USA|America]]n" to "United Statesn". Not sure if that is your script or an AWB default but might want to check on it.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 12:14, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

{{ping|Loriendrew} thank you for letting me know, that is completely my fault and I should have caught it before I saved the edit. I'll update my script accordingly, thanks again.— TAnthony^Talk 13:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Question about Overlinking

I saw your edit about overlinking to the U.S. It seems reasonable to me. I think most readers will know what the U.S. is and do not need a wiki-link to it. I feel the same way about years being linked to. (I find it annoying thinking I will find something interesting in clicking the link to the year and all you get is a list of everything deemed important for that year.)

I'd like to know: does it create a problem other than being a distraction? Like that every instance where U.S. is linked to is all accumulated to one article list, and it makes a mess and is not useful and/or is a burden on the software that accumulates references, stubs, widows, etc.? --David Tornheim (talk) 23:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Well the idea behind WP:Overlinking is that too may links detract from the user experience, and if statistically no one is ever going to click book or France, common words shouldn't be linked any more than "the". I don't think it necessarily puts a burden on the technical aspects of the encyclopedia. By the way, per WP:DATELINK there should be no linking of dates in most cases anyway.— TAnthony^Talk 23:40, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Question about Star Wars characters

Not actually to do with the Legends and canon lists of characters, despite my massive edit to the Legends one that I'm now rethinking. I've been working on the Mandalorian article, and I'm thinking it'd be a decent place to have sections of significant (Mandalorian) characters who are a little bit floating around, i.e. Satine and Bo-Katan and and Fenn Rau and so on. I have a little bit of a hastily written dump on one of my subpages, if that'd make what I'm talking about. (It needs a lot of work, referencing, and trimming, seeing as my editing style in userspace is write everything now and trim later, but that aside...) It's something similar to what I've done (not very well, admittedly) on Clone trooper. (Though I do wonder eventually if a List of clone troopers or something would be viable, considering there are significantly more "significant" clone trooper characters than Mandalorian characters. List of Clone Trooper characters from Star Wars: The Clone Wars is a thing that exists, though I certainly don't think that particular list is prudent or even well devised.)

The thing is, I'm a little concerned about like List of Star Wars Rebels characters and List of Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic characters. How would characters that can be listed at both be handled? For example, when writing a little blurb for Sabine Wren, do I treat List of Star Wars Rebels characters#Sabine Wren as if it were a main article, write a tiny summary and hatnote it (like I will for Boba Fett and Jango Fett)? I'm pretty sure that's the better way to do it, but I'm second-guessing myself here.

Unrelated to characters, do you think it's wise to create a section on the article for Mandalore the planet, seeing as the term redirects to the Mandalorian article? I mean, there is at least some commentary from Filoni on designing the visual setting of Sundari, so it won't be entirely in-universe stuff, though considering the difference between canon!Mandalore and Legends!Mandalore, I suppose that would have to be summarized briefly as well.

Anyway, asking you because... reasons, I guess. You're really one of the few I've seen going around the Star Wars articles. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 19:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I've done similar things to what you did with Clone troopers with other franchises, I think first you just have to decide where the basic destination should be for a character. Obviously, the redirect destinations for many minor characters currently go to one of the character lists, or to the source work. Pointing Satine Kryze to a section on the character at Mandalorian is a great option, because you can include more on the character than you should in List of Star Wars characters. If the section is robust enough, you might even consider an infobox, a lot of the soap opera character lists do this, I've done it for Dune and seen it elsewhere (though of course non-free images should be used very sparingly, if at all). The same goes for the planet, one well-sourced article covering all these related people, places and things is stronger and asserts more notability than several separate small articles on the race, the planet, and the individuals might. In the case of Sabine Wren, choose whichever destination makes the most sense and make that the more robust entry, while the other one is a short blurb with a link back to the other. I don't know if you think she would be better located at Mandalorian or List of Star Wars Rebels characters, except if you do it at Rebels you probably should to do it for all of the main characters so her entry doesn't overpower the rest of the main character section of the list.— TAnthony^Talk 00:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Ah, that's reassuring. I kind of feel like I've been fumbling around. (Kind of really finally getting back into the swing of things, and I'm mostly feeling, "How does one do these things again?") Thank you for your input! ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 16:23, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Seddon Pennine RU

Hello, I had forgot I even mentioned the U.S. in the Seddon RU article. I notice you also think it's overlinked.Stephen Allcroft (talk) 14:06, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, "United States" is definitely considered a major geographic location to which WP:Overlinking would apply.— TAnthony^Talk 15:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Regarding cats and Atvica

Seeing as you mentioned it on the CfD for Category:Clone characters, I noticed with these three edits (one, two, three) that Atvica created another category. I'm not overly well-versed in categories and I generally stay away from them, hence why I was (probably too) cautious in my nom. But, I went through and took a look at all the categories Atvica created and, ah, I'm not entirely sure Category:Fictional Pulitzer Prize winners and Category:Fictional survivalists and the like are useful. A handful of them look potentially useful, but then, as I said, I'm not well-versed in categories. Really, I'm not entirely sure who to ask to help sort through the categories and CfD them where appropriate. Do you know anyone who could and would be willing? Also, I attempted to leave a note on Atvica's talk page suggesting in the future they seek guidance from a project or more experienced editor, to save time at CfD. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 03:06, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Family trees

Hello. Well, we had a short discussion before and unfortunately I was unable to visit Wikipedia for a while. You said User:AffeL would object deleting or merging those two family trees. Well, he can try but it's obvious that these are completely useless and unimportant. So what do you suggest? A discussion at the Wikiproject or should I notify the admins to decide what to do with those family trees? Keivan.f^Talk 18:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I just boldly eliminated the Tarly tree, we can take it to TfD if there is any backlash. I think we should do the same to the Bolton tree and just put copies in Roose Bolton and Ramsay Bolton, what do you think? — TAnthony^Talk 18:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I did the same for the Bolton tree ... — TAnthony^Talk 20:50, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

File mover granted

Hello TAnthony. Your account has been granted the "filemover" user right, either following a request for it or due to a clear need for the ability to move files. Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:File mover for more information on this user right and under what circumstances it is okay to move files. When you move a file please remember to update any links to the new name as well! If you do not want the file mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Widr (talk) 16:52, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! — TAnthony^Talk 16:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Page mover granted

Hello, TAnthony. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Articles to be moved, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, post here, or just let me know. Thank you, and happy editing! ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:04, 12 August 2016 (UTC) ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:04, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you!— TAnthony^Talk 04:05, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Star Wars: Poe Dameron

Hello! Your submission of Star Wars: Poe Dameron at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Kosack (talk) 20:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Dune chronology

Template:Dune chronology has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Izno (talk) 14:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Star Wars: Poe Dameron

On 17 August 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Star Wars: Poe Dameron, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Charles Soule, creator of the comic book series Star Wars: Poe Dameron, writes English dialogue for the droid BB-8 which is later translated into "bleeps and bloops" for the comic? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Star Wars: Poe Dameron. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Star Wars: Poe Dameron), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

List of technology of the Dune universe

I never actually meant for you to move the article, I was just questioning your reasoning and it's not that I agree at all. I think Technology of the Dune universe is fine just as it is.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 02:34, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I didn't move it because I thought you wanted me to, it really just never shaped up beyond a robust list, and I kind of never noticed. I think the Star Wars technology article has more going for it, so while I still think it's kind of listy, I don't think it's necessary right now that it be moved or renamed or anything.TAnthony^Talk 02:42, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Well I still think it should stay by it's original title as that makes more sense than this. A list is List of Airports in Pakistan. Unless each section is it's own subtopic, it's nothing more than a list. And every article on Wiki has subtopics at least 95% of them so they are not lists just because they are subtopics.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 21:11, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

In your article, the lead is making the statement that Star Wars has borrowed, inspired, and predicted various real-world technologies. Ultimately, this statement should be uniformly supported by the various sections, which will be also summarized in the lead. I believe this statement to be fundamentally true, so this is doable. In contrast, the individual Dune items are not currently tied together toward the same kind of "thesis", they are just presented as elements that exist in the franchise. They're not really subtopics because as it's currently presented, "Technology of Dune" isn't really a topic, it's exactly like Airports of Pakistan. Like I said elsewhere, a standalone list does not have to be a bare bulletpoint list or table. — TAnthony^Talk 00:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jon Snow (character)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Jon Snow (character) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Miyagawa -- Miyagawa (talk) 09:40, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jon Snow (character)

The article Jon Snow (character) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Jon Snow (character) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Miyagawa -- Miyagawa (talk) 11:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jon Snow (character)

The article Jon Snow (character) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Jon Snow (character) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Miyagawa -- Miyagawa (talk) 08:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Philosophy and religion in Star Trek

If it has to be redirected, why not an appropriate subsection which is relevant to the topic. Although philosophy and religion are notable topics and Star Trek and Star Wars, if they are to be redirected, I think they should be redirected to a more appropriate section or subsection that are relevant to the topics which if I'm not mistaken is required by guidelines and policy.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 22:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't know that there is currently a section devoted to philosophy or religion in the Star Trek article, which is why I suggested one be created.— TAnthony^Talk

Your GA nomination of Grand Admiral Thrawn

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Grand Admiral Thrawn you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Miyagawa -- Miyagawa (talk) 14:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Grand Admiral Thrawn

The article Grand Admiral Thrawn you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Grand Admiral Thrawn for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Miyagawa -- Miyagawa (talk) 15:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Grand Admiral Thrawn

The article Grand Admiral Thrawn you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Grand Admiral Thrawn for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Miyagawa -- Miyagawa (talk) 22:01, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Jon Snow (character)

Hello! Your submission of Jon Snow (character) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! --DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 01:01, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	You did great. sbf1998✔ 07:11, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Grand Admiral Thrawn

On 6 September 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Grand Admiral Thrawn, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Star Wars expanded universe villain Grand Admiral Thrawn will be reintroduced into the franchise's official canon in an upcoming episode of the animated series Star Wars Rebels? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Grand Admiral Thrawn. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Grand Admiral Thrawn), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Ted Mitchell redirect

I propose to retarget a redirect that you have edited (“Ted Mitchell”) from List of EastEnders characters (2002) to Under Secretary of Education because I feel a real person trumps a fictional character. What do you think? Bwrs (talk) 07:27, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Jon Snow (character)

On 12 September 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jon Snow (character), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that actor Kit Harington publicly apologized for "lying to everyone" about the onscreen fate of his Game of Thrones character Jon Snow? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jon Snow (character). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Jon Snow (character)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Chad Harris-Crane - featured article candidate

Hello, I've nominated the article about the episode Chad Harris-Crane for Featured Article consideration. I would really appreciate any comments or feedback on this nomination, especially since you are one of the more active members of WikiProject Soap Operas. I understand that you must be busy with your own projects on here as well as in real life so I completely understand if you do not have the time or would not like to do this. I want to apologize for any inconvenience for posting on here, as we have never worked together in the past on here, but I always would appreciate support from a more experienced user/editor.

The link is here if you are interested: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chad Harris-Crane/archive1. Aoba47 (talk) 01:03, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Highlander cat

The large male cat has ears that are curved significantly backwards, about 45 degrees, but are very short compared to most Highlander cats I have seen. Can you not see the picture? If this somehow makes him not appropriate to be called a Highlander cat just tell me why. It is an "experimental breed". You also edited out when I said he was large, he is the biggest cat I ever owned and I have owned Maine Coons. You mention sources, I am the source and you can see the picture. I am just trying to get information about this breed out for the world to see and you feel you need to edit everything. Please explain what you are trying to do?

First time editing Wikipedia, if I did something wrong my apologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DigitalDirt (talk • contribs) 04:34, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, I was not sure you were seeing my edit summaries and comments on your IP talk pages explaining myself. I figured you were new and that your edits were mad3e in good faith, so I have been trying to explain why some of them are not appropriate additions. Per the policies WP:POV and WP:OR, we as editors cannot make observations of our own. You and I are not considered reliable sources by Wikipedia standards, so even if it's your cat and you believe it is large, or the ears are small, the information is unsourced and unreliable. The body of the article contains statements regarding the curled ears and larger size of the breed, and these statements are cited to reliable sources. This is more than adequate to "get information about this breed out for the world". I appreciate you adding these images, but I'm hoping you understand that when describing and captioning them we cannot include our personal observations. Further, when unsourced information is challenged by another editor, that editor may remove that information until a source is provided. By the way, File:Highlander-7.jpg is a great image, is this also your own Highlander as well? It reminds me a bit of mine.— TAnthony^Talk 04:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes I just adopted both of the cats 3 weeks ago. You are obviously passionate about cats and I appreciate that. The cat "Highlander-7.jpg" is a girl and is definitely amazing looking and very sweet. I am now understanding how on Wiki you can't state something even though you can see it in a picture, the statement has to come from a reliable source. I apologize, I love my new cats and just wanted to get more info out on them. If I ever post again I will contact you first.

Damon — Preceding unsigned comment added by DigitalDirt (talk • contribs) 05:00, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm happy to help anytime.— TAnthony^Talk 05:12, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 6 October

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Dynasty (1981 TV series) page, your edit caused a redundant parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

UFO kidnapped

Hi, I am the creator of the UFO Kidnapped page, and I put the image in the info box. It needs the fit the box. Please do not shrink the image, as it looks better when it fits the top of the info box.

User:DavidgoodheartDavidgoodheart (talk) 18:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Most images display fine with the infobox's default settings, so my bad for not noticing that the image in UFO Kidnapped was rather small after the change because the image was smaller than the default. You're still using deprecated syntax though, so I've corrected it and added |image_size=. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 20:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you and Canada link

Hi, thank you for laying out the right the info box image, but why did you remove my link to Canada? Why don't you think it should be there?

Per WP:Overlinking, the names of major geographic features and locations need not be linked.— TAnthony^Talk 20:28, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Is the new image you put in the info box your own image, not the one I used?

User:DavidgoodheartDavidgoodheart (talk) 22:53, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I found one on another site which was larger. However, that is not why I reuploaded it. You are not the copyright holder of the image (that is presumably Nickelodeon) but you uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons, which is for either copyright-free images or images for which the copyright owner is giving permission for its use here. The proper way to upload a copyrighted image being used here under WP:NONFREE is the way I've done it, designating it as non-free and providing the appropriate rationale and license tag. Thanks!— TAnthony^Talk 22:58, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Mark Jennings (Dynasty) and Mark Jennings (Dynasty character)

Looks like there is a page for both Mark Jennings (Dynasty) and Mark Jennings (Dynasty character), might want to merge that or something! (If it wasn't for the fact I was looking for DAB's, I would of never found this guy in the first place!)Wgolf (talk) 04:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

"rumour"

Re [5]. I heard someone telling me that they heard someone else say that the HBO website said that Rhaegar and Lyanna were Jon's parents. That was the "rumour" I was talking about. The reason I didn't remove the claim outright was because I was inclined to believe the rumour was accurate and therefore almost certainly verifiable. I didn't see the bit in our article that cited the same website and linked to it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I see now that my edit summary could be interpreted as snarky, so sorry, that was not intended. I agreed with your assessments about the season 6 plot and made some changes. There is also a wealth of episode coverage in the media so citing the plot summaries in Jon Snow (character) and eventually all of the character articles is not a bad idea. In that particular article I feel the plot is pretty sound but by all means please adjust or call to my attention to anything else that seems interpretive. Obviously you're correct that many editors with varying degrees of understanding of policy have contributed.

On a side note re: this, a single editor did create/recreate nearly all of the character articles over this past year with some cursory citations and then, of course, the masses jumped in. Some of the new articles are decently sourced and on their way, some have a bit of junk, and some are thin. Myself and others were fighting it at first, but with the amount of coverage out there now I had high hopes that many would be improved. I honestly don't contribute to any ASOIAF character articles on a regular basis except ones I've already worked on significantly, and I haven't yet chosen my next one for improvement ;) — TAnthony^Talk 13:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

typo in Thomas Minor article (unable to fix)

Hello. There is a typo in the Thomas Minor article that I am not sure how to fix. When you access the article through the Wikipedia mobile app, it says at the very top under the article title (Thomas Minor) "American city ofunder" rather than "American city founder". I cannot figure out how to edit that text. Please assist if you can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:6304:1400:888f:8405:1ad3:1c23 (talk) 16:40, November 7, 2016

I'm not seeing this typo while accessing Thomas Minor from a desktop browser, but I do see it on the search results page of the mobile app, even after I purged the cache. I'm not sure what to do about that, I don't know where the app is getting that summary from.— TAnthony^Talk 16:49, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Comic Book Girl 19 page

Okay, SORRY I made a couple mistakes in my edits: Comic Book Girl 19: Revision history, [6] "05:40, 10 November 2016‎ TAnthony (9,680 bytes) (-222)‎ . . (→‎External links: You've already used Patreon as a source above, this is inappropriate promotion of her fundraising efforts" and "05:39, 10 November 2016‎ TAnthony (9,902 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Refs go before Ext links her the MOS)". Just trying to contribute to the article... 2601:340:4201:A8F1:3153:8841:9A9B:976E (talk) 06:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

No apologies necessary, I hope my edit summary adequately explained why I was removing some of your additions. Thanks for contributing!— TAnthony^Talk 15:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

AWB Script

Hello! So I've been trying to make a dent in the Books with missing cover backlog and I saw you are using a nifty little WP:AWB script to clean up some of my uploads. Any chance you are willing to share the script you are using? --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:06, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I'd be happy to, but it's basic and not quite as automated as it may look! It will add a category to a book license template missing one, but it's not actually choosing. For the most part I pull up articles by category, pull the files on those pages and then run through them with an appropriate category. But I actually have to view many of the files/articles manually to confirm I'm assigning an appropriate category. Some filenames/descriptions are vague and there are invariably subcategories which are not consistent. I've done over 20K now so I'm hitting the point where I am going to have to go thru them one by one and manually assign categories (though even having AWB cue them up and plug in a dummy category saves time).— TAnthony^Talk 05:37, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

And @Zackmann08: if you're aiming to take a big chunk out of the book cover backlog, it would be great if you could add a category and |image has rationale= with "yes" when adding the FUR and licensing template(s). You're already looking at the article and the image so you are in the perfect position to include this info. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 22:39, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I missed your initial response because there was no {{ping}}. Thanks for the info! I'll make some changes to my process and make it happen. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Great thanks!— TAnthony^Talk 22:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Darth Vader

Hello. For the Darth Vader article, I think we should try to work on it for a possible GA along with User:EEMIV, and I requested User:Oknazevad for his assistance but he was a bit busy. While I've asked at WT:FILM for input on the Depiction section and I've nominated the article for peer review, can you give me any thoughts or ideas on how to improve the article while I'm still working on it? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Skywalker family tree

Template:Skywalker family tree has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, TAnthony. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Infobox book: multipage files as cover image

Hi,

Last year you raised book articles using the old image format which were using .djvu or .pdf files, that couldn't easily be migrated to the new format.

I see that the category has now been completely cleared (must have taken loads of work!), and it may have taken me more than a year to get around to this, but I just thought I'd say that I've fixed a few that had been migrated to use the front page of the djvu file, by using {{!}} (like so); for what it's worth I'm now pretty much convinced that all infobox books using .djvu files for their cover image are now set to use the right page.

Cheers! ‑‑Yodin^T 01:37, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Cleganes and Gilly

Hi TAnthony. Recently I have had a problem with a user (AffeL) about the family tree of the House Clegane and also about a character, Gilly. As a fan of both the books and the show, I thought you might be able to help. Is Gilly Sam's wife? As long as I know they have never been officially married, neither in the books nor the TV series. The fact that she's Sam's partner doesn't make her a member of the House Tarly. We cannot just create a family tree based on your own fictions. Is there any proof that they have married? And obviously only husbands and wives are added to each house's family tree not lovers and partners. And about the Clegane family tree, what does it actually add to those articles? What's the purpose of having it? It just shows that they had two unknown parents, which every single person on the Earth does. No one has fallen from the sky, everyone is born and has a father and a mother. So what's the reason for keeping these family trees? Do you also agree with me? Keivan.f^Talk 23:54, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you that a) Gilly should not be part of the Tarly tree; and b) that a Clegane tree is useless since we have only two brothers and no other relatives, and it is already easy to navigate between the two articles. It seems like the issue has been settled but I will try to look out for any discussion that may arise.— TAnthony^Talk 06:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad that you agree as well. Fortunately another user came to my help and solved the issue. Keivan.f^Talk 02:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Star Wars stuff

There are two new Star Wars templates at Template:Star Wars: The Clone Wars and Template:Rogue One. I tried to clean them up as best I can, but I'm not well versed in navbox making, and I'm also stuck editing on tablet and mobile, making tasks like alphabetizing a living hell. Should you have interest or time, can you take a look at them? Additionally, I read the note on Qäsee's talk about the Rogue One characters. Thought I'd mention I'm likely to adopt those articles, especially Cassian, once I can edit from something other than a tablet. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 19:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes I've been meaning to take a good look at those templates. About the character articles, I started to work a bit on Jyn Erso but yes, it'd be great to get some improvement on those! — TAnthony^Talk 19:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Florida Student Association Corrections

Thanks for correcting the page titled "Florida Student Association".

Please change the name of that page to "Florida Student Association, Inc." because that is the full legal name of the corporation. And please make a redirect page that links "Florida Student Association" to "Florida Student Association, Inc."

MQMagoo (talk) 05:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Star wars book list

hi

i tried to make a few edits in the book list cause the Jedi tales are not novels they are comic book and they should not be in the list with novels i think comic books should have their own section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GorionZ (talk • contribs) 14:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Ingvild Deila

I was responding to your comment to acknowledge that you were right. Why did you delete my post? -A lad insane (Channel 2) 22:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 22:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Book cover copyrights

Hi TAnthony I saw that you reduced the size and resolution of the File:Book cover of From the Wilderness and Lebanon.png [Your revision: Licensing: Embed image category in Non-free book cover, and cleanup using AWB] Well, I asked permission from Koren Publishers for high resolution version of the front cover, and They gave full permission:

2017-01-10 16:17 GMT+02:00 Singer Yehudit , Koren Publishers Jerusalem YehuditS@korenpub.com:

Hi Itamar,

Sure, I’m attaching the cover here for you to use with full permission from The Toby Press. (The Toby Press is an imprint of Koren.)

Yehudit Singer Manager, Book Marketing & Public Relations pr@tobypress.com Israel: T 02-966-2925 / F 02-673-9948 USA: T 203-830-8508 / F 203-830-8512

tobypress logo_red_hiThe Toby Press www.tobypress.com

Koren logoKOREN PUBLISHERS JERUSALEM Tanakh - Tefilla - Talmud- Maggid www.korenpub.com

Distributors of Koren Publishers Jerusalem, Steinsaltz, Toby Press & Maggid Books

---

From: itamar sol [7] Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2017 3:11 PM To: Singer Yehudit , Koren Publishers Jerusalem YehuditS@korenpub.com Subject: Front Cover of From the Wilderness and Lebanon

Hi, Can you send me please a high resolution version of the front cover of From the Wilderness and Lebanon for the use of Wikipedia? I wiil need a written permission to upload it, if it's OK with you... Thanks, Itamar

Can you help me uploading back the high resolution image. Thanks Korenreader (talk) 20:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Korenreader: Hi, thanks for your email. My edit did not reduce the image, that was done by a bot here per standard Wikipedia policy. I'm not sure how you go about getting the size restriction lifted per your permissions email, but you may want to ask the question at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Keep in mind however that {{Infobox book}} has a default display size around what the current image size is anyway, and most readers will probably not click through to see the full image. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 21:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

ThanksKorenreader (talk) 15:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Holding Cell

Hey, thanks for the help recently with some of those page orphans at the Holding Cell. One thing I'd ask is that you orphan templates from every namespace, not just main, before listing them for deletion. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 02:32, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: I see you removed it from a draft that was a user subpage, which I avoided because it was in userspace, figuring that redlinks are preferred to my editing in someone else's userspace. Is it OK then to remove them from subpages, or User pages themselves?— TAnthony^Talk 02:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

If it's an administrative/editorial fix due to something like a TFD or RFC, any page is fair game. User page ownership is more of a courtesy than a hard rule, and updates like these are explicitly mentioned as being perfectly acceptable. It also keeps the maintenance category of "pages calling deleted templates" a bit cleaner.

My personal exceptions are if a template is in some sort of of "templates I've created" page, or used in an archive, in which case I will comment it out rather than remove it entirely. Primefac (talk) 03:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your work on several articles (Adulting and Ben Baur); I was planning on working on them in the future but glad to know someone beat me to the punch ;). Thanks, Carbrera (talk) 04:15, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@Carbrera: Thanks!— TAnthony^Talk 15:24, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Non-free use review

Hi TAnthony. What's your process when reviewing non-free use rationales with AWB? A thorough human review of non-free use often requires manually looking at the page to determine the context it's used in, reviewing the page to see if other non-free images are used, etc. Are you doing this? Note that I have a bot in the pipeline to knock out preliminary reviews of "Is there a rationale on the page at all?", which will throw files in a separate tracking category noting that humans should further review them to make sure the rationales are accurate. It's that accuracy review we need humans to focus on. I'm also worried about the rate of edits. 30 edits/minute is about as fast as AWB goes, and it runs afoul of WP:BOTASSIST. Could you slow down your editing? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey there, yes this morning's run has been fast because I've already been through these and am just adding the actual rationale parameter for {{Non-free poster}} in the A's. Honestly my first pass review in most cases has been, as you suggest, a cursory check that a rationale is present and that the description etc. seems to match the article title. Logos, posters, currency, etc. are usually simple to confirm in this way without visiting the article, though of course there are occasionally "bad" usages, as in galleries or decorative images. I've found though that the percentage of these is relatively small, they seem to get policed out pretty well. In any case, your bot sounds amazing and should really filter this horrendous backlog, which was what I was attempting in the first place. Do you think it will get approved soon? I'm happy to lay off this for now and resume more in depth assessments when your bot has cleaned things up. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 15:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm running the trial now and expect it to be approved imminently, yeah. I wouldn't expect/want one of our precious few file editors banging their head against a brick wall just adding the parameter to these, so probably best to wait for the bot to run through. The run may take several weeks, as the bot will edit at a rate of 6 edits/minute and the backlog is quite large. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 10:34, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

This was approved and is running, so probably good to hold off totally on further AWB review until the bot does its thing. See Category:Non-free images with NFUR stated (bot-assessed). ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Author Page For a new author

Hi Sir, We are trying to get a wiki page setup for an author who's book is to be launched soon. We would request you if you could help us with the same --Casanova2105 (talk) 13:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@Casanova2105: I'd be happy to help if you can get me more information. I can tell you as far as notability standards go, for a new author it is probably more likely that we can establish notability to create an article for the book itself rather than for the author. For example, the novel Lily and the Octopus has enough coverage by reliable sources for a decent starter article, but author Steven Rowley himself does not really meet our requirements for an individual article because his only notability (by Wikipedia standards) seems to extend from the novel.— TAnthony^Talk 16:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:ChristopherCazenove-BenCarrington.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:ChristopherCazenove-BenCarrington.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:HarryAndrews-TomCarrington.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:HarryAndrews-TomCarrington.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Your revert at Toluca Lake, Los Angeles

Hello TAnthony,

I saw your revert at the article on Toluca Lake. The article on Bob Hope mentions his Toluca Lake residence several times, with sources. I would like to encourage you to perhaps not be so quick to revert new users in the future; especially with statements that can be easily checked and sourced if true. I know that the burden of proof is on the editor adding content, but new editors might not know how to do that yet, and simply seeing their changes undone might be disheartening. I've left a note on the talk page of the editor who made the change asking them to use sources in the future.

Also, in hindsight my edit summary when I re-added Hope was a bit passive-aggressive. Sorry about that. Turns out the version with the passive-aggressive edit summary was lost in the edit conflict. Happy editing! Howicus (Did I mess up?) 05:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@Howicus: I actually live two blocks from Bob Hope's former house in Toluca Lake, and I was surprised it wasn't already in the article with a source. I probably would have added it myself in the morning, but honestly a blunt revert can teach more to an editor with one edit than an immediate correction; they don't necessarily watch the article and comprehend a subsequent edit, but they get an alert when they are reverted. I did actually check the editor's edit history first because their user page was a redlink. In any case, thanks for your reminder that we should be more understanding of new editors, and certainly someone who took the time to create a username is probably more serious than an IP.— TAnthony^Talk 05:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Miss Universe 2006

On the Miss Universe 2006 page, it is supposed to be USA. Not United States. In the pageant, they say "Miss USA" and designate her as USA, not United States, and the official name of the pageant is Miss USA. Rararawr21 (talk) 20:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood. Besides, there shouldn't be a link there to the United States anyway, it should go direct to Tara Conner's Wikipedia page. Rararawr21 (talk) 21:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

You're so right about Tara Conner, I should have checked if she had a page but many pageant contestants I came across in these lists don't, and are instead linked to their countries for some reason.— TAnthony^Talk 21:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for adding to the Reception subhead. This is the first real movie with the subject as backdrop, and it would be a shame if it was just dismissed as bad. Having seen the film, I feel it was an honest effort by someone who had the chops to do something like this. I am not connected with the film--just a Ukrainian American who was amazed that someone had the hutzpa to gather the money, interest the talent, go through all the wickets and permissions, etc. and put something out there that would raise awareness about the horror of the Holodomor. Sorry if I made editing errors, or caused frustration. But I can see that you are trying to get a fair handle on the gist of my attempts. I sincerely appreciate your professionalism and dedication to the Wikipedia goals.```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artistdatausa (talk • contribs) 00:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Star Wars planets/Bogden

Why is it not notable? There are quite a few other planets on that list that are only mentioned in passing. Yes, they are better known because most of them were mentioned as part of the original trilogy but play no bigger part in the story. Robo37 (talk) 21:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the message regarding my edit. There used to be 10 separate lists of Star Wars planets (all deleted now as an excessive amount of unsourced trivia), and there are literally hundreds of planets if we count every one ever mentioned in any Star Wars work. There has been lengthy discussion on the talk page about criteria for inclusion and sourcing, and though it is ongoing, there seems to be agreement that the planets on this list should have significant in-universe notability to the extent that they are the setting for at least part of a work, or something like that. I don't think Bogden meets that requirement if it was only mentioned in a film. I'm not an expert in all Star Wars planets, so I'd be interested to know which ones on the list you suggest were merely mentioned and would be equally as notable/non-notable as Bogden? Part of the ongoing discussion concerns whether or not being mentioned in a Star Wars reference book has any bearing on notability as far as being listed here, it would not surprise me if there were others that should be removed. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 23:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

But Jango Fett, being the template of the Clone Arm, is critical to the plot so it's relevant to know where the sith hired him. Compare this to Ord Mantell on which Han Solo only mentions running into a non-descript bounty hunter that likely has zero importance to the plot of the movie, especially now the one comic that went into any depth into the bounty hunter's backstory has been decononised. Then there are numerous homeworld planets in the list that I quite honestly don't remember hearing mentioned but some of them like Sullust are home to species that don't even play any sufficient role in the films, only ever seen playing bit parts or as extras. You could probably argue all the planets only ever verbally mentioned in the films are non-notable but if you're going to do that you may as well just rename the article "List of planets and moons seen in the Star Wars films". Robo37 (talk) 14:26, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the response! The planet where Jango was hired might be of interest in Jango Fett or Clone trooper, but it is too trivial for this list—it's perhaps notable in that context, but not "critical" to understanding of the plot/topic. There are already over 100 planets (!!!) listed here; if those were the only one ones ever mentioned, then the list could probably remain manageable with entries like this. But there are hundreds. And again, if we list every planet ever mentioned in relation to a notable plot point, it would get ridiculous. This list is not just about the films, it is meant to note the fictional locations considered notable in the franchise as a whole. I'm not an expert on the expanded universe but Ord Mantell and Sullust are linked from several articles and seem to be settings in other novels and video games. But you could be right, this list (by current design) does not note every use of the planet in the franchise, and one or both of those may not be appropriate for the list either. That might be a possible improvement, bolstering the descriptions with more substantial real-word context (usage in works) to help assert individual notability.— TAnthony^Talk 16:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:Novels

Thanks for the edits/cleanup. I would've come around to doing them eventually, but it's always good to see others participating in it too, especially since it feels like a few others and I are the only ones still active in this WikiProject. But yeah. LoMStalk 02:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Feud: Bette and Joan / Toby Huss

Toby Huss has a recurring role in the series as Frank Sinatra, it is not a one off character and given that Mr. Sinatra is a well known/famous person he should be included anyway. YborCityJohn (talk) 14:37, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@YborCityJohn: This is probably worth discussing on the Feud talk page; he has yet to appear in a second episode, and being a famous person means nothing, as Anne Bancroft was previously removed as well.— TAnthony^Talk 15:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

FYI

The TV guide billed the title to Talking With Chris Hardwick with a capital W. Can you revert it back to its current name.Leviathan648 (talk) 04:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Leviathan648: Thanks for your message. Article titles are written in sentence case per WP:TITLEFORMAT, and this pretty much trumps any sources which may show otherwise unless there is consensus that a particular unusual spelling, capitalization or punctuation is significant, overwhelmingly used, and notable. I should also point out that the official website appears to use a lowercase W, though using that as "proof" may be original research. Lastly, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks we Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization practices, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official" for titles (or products). Examples include Time instead of TIME, Numbers instead of NUMB3RS, Unreal instead of UnREAL, etc. Of course unusual formatting/stylization can and should be noted in the article if it is notable, but I don't think that's the case here. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 05:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

BB-8

Hello,

Dave Chapman & Brian Herring mentioned at the DragonCon Panel that a remote controlled rolling BB8 was built and used in only 2 scenes. The rest were the rod puppet and Trolley. I just thought it was an interesting fact to mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.61.219.38 (talk) 05:20, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

It is interesting and probably belongs in the article, but it needs a source. I can look for something that mentions this statement.— TAnthony^Talk 17:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Possibly this panel or this interview?— TAnthony^Talk 18:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Superman og Fredsbomben

I don't know why I would vandalize an article that I created myself some weeks ago.

This particular comic book was never published in USA, so any information in internet is very scarce. We all know that Superman is an american character owned by DC Comics/Warner Brothers, and this particular album was the first only time that DC permitted a foreign publisher to create an original story outside american soil. The very reason to have this page in US wikipedia was to help readers, collectors and pop culture enthusiasts that such book existed in Denmark, where it was originally produced, and in other European countries. The comic book covers that I put in the page was to help people. All this comics no longer are being published and their publisher companies no longer exists, they all shut down, so there are no copyright holders whatsoever.

These images were scanned from my own personal collection of the books I bought in early 90s and represent only the cover of the books. I never scanned the content of the books and publish here or anywhere else, that would be copyright offense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabiomarques (talk • contribs) 13:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@Fabiomarques: I have never told you that your edits were vandalism; you are not understanding Wikipedia's fair use policies and are continuing to improperly use non-free images. I inadvertently reported you at WP:AIV (vandalism) instead of WP:ANI (incidents) however, which works in your favor because you are not going to be blocked or anything. Hopefully this has gotten your attention though, which was my goal.

I understand everything you are saying, but these images are not freely useable, whether they are from your personal copies or not. You say "there are no copyright holders whatsoever", but you are wrong: even when a company goes bankrupt, even if everyone that ever worked there was sucked into the vacuum of space, someone or some entity is left with the rights to its intellectual property. Fair use policy allows for a minimal amount of images to illustrate a topic; in this case, this means the one cover image in the infobox and not the additional five variants you have provided. I'm sorry but those are the rules.— TAnthony^Talk 14:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

And thank you for adding external sources that feature the cover images rather than restoring the images themselves to the article. This is exactly how it is supposed to work; we can provide information helpful to the reader without violating WP policies, which are in place to protect WP from legal actions.— TAnthony^Talk 14:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@TAnthony:Those products are not under american copyright law, they are produced in Europe, so different copyright law applies. But even in USA if copyright product license is not renewed it goes into public domain. Interpresse never renewed the copyright of Superman og Fredsbomben, neither did DC Comics or Warner Brothers, because it was never published in USA.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabiomarques (talk • contribs) 16:05, April 14, 2017 (UTC)

As I mentioned elsewhere, if that is true the images need to be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons instead, but you must be sure to add the appropriate license for this situation, and be able to provide documentation if requested, or they will be deleted.— TAnthony^Talk 16:31, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Feud: Historical figures and Major Crimes

Hey! Nice start on the historical figures list. I tweaked the heading and added a few, as well as who they are. We should talk about others who might be included (Robert Stack, Cliff Robertson, Lee Remick, etc.) I believe there are several more coming, based on the IMDB, but I have the group from the Oscars pretty well filled in.

Also, the cast table for Major Crimes has gotten heavy with recurring cast. It probably needs to be converted to narrative. What do you think? --Drmargi (talk) 19:35, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes the list was a good idea, appropriate for this show. And you're right about Major Crimes, it's become too much for a table.— TAnthony^Talk 20:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Melissa Hastings for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Melissa Hastings is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melissa Hastings until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

List of Star Wars Characters Main Article template links

I see you have removed all of this, but is this absolutely set in stone for these main article links not to appear in a table? They fit well in the descriptions for the main characters and let readers know that there is definitely much more to these characters descriptions than a line or two. If not an absolute mandatory rule (why should it be?) then they should return to the article.

The link alone on the name doesn't differentiate major characters enough, as many don't lead to pages directly about the character listed, and many minor characters have these links as well. For example, a single line next to Luke Skywalker's name seems silly when next to Shmi or Snaggletooth who have paragraphs. But at the same time it would be a wasted effort to add in longer descriptions for major characters who already warrant their own articles. So I think the main article template is quite fitting here, or at least bolding the names of those with their own full pages. Just trying to make a better and more informative article over all.RamshackleMan (talk) 12:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@RamshackleMan: The documentation clearly states that This template is used after the heading of a section, and I actually don't think it fits well into the description box of a table. Even looking at it objectively, it is indented as a hatnote, which belongs before text, but you recognized that it would be even more weird there in this case and put it after. The link on the character name is enough, this is how character lists (and lists in general) are formatted. The link itself tells us there is more information elsewhere without needing a template. List of Star Wars characters is intended to collect all notable characters with a descriptive blurb and appearance/cast info on each. In general, every character should have a primary place at Wikipedia where we think the most information about them can be found, and the link to their name should lead there. Characters with their own articles are linked and should have minimal description in the list. Characters with bulked up sections in other articles (like Shmi Skywalker or Hera Syndulla) are redirected to those sections and should have minimal descriptions in the list. Some characters names may be just redirects to the source works, like Norra Wexley; in this particular instance it seems the best redirect destination, but of course redirects can be changed when a better destination arises. Finally, the list itself may be the best destination for certain characters, and these entries are the ones that can possibly be longer because the list becomes the primary source of information on the character. Shmi should not really have a longer description in the list than Luke because in those cases the list should only be identifying them and driving traffic elsewhere. I understand what you're saying but we do not need to differentiate major characters in the way you describe. Every link on Wikipedia may lead to a full article on the named topic, a specific section, or something else entirely, but we don't "warn" readers of a redirect in the body of an article (or a table for that matter).— TAnthony^Talk 13:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC)