Talk:A Grizzly Murder

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the A Grizzly Murder redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

....regrettably

Untitled[edit]

OK, that was a lot of work outside my usual areas of interest, to create the circumstances that make this question on-topic: was that Ed Begley, Jr., playing the supervisor?
--Jerzy•t 20:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"CSD" & "hangon" tags[edit]

Re: CSD and {{hangon}}[edit]

(The preceding original hdg is at best tricky to wiki-lk to, and the replacement immediately above it should be lk'd instead.)
--Jerzy•t 19:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At 14:59, 6 June 2007, an editor tagged the accompanying article with {{db}} giving as reason

Page created soley to ask if Ed Beagly was in the episode (see talk page)

--Jerzy•t 19:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although this page was initially created to see if Ed Begley was in the episode, a suitably rewritten article following the episode template for WikiProject CSI would have value as part of a collection of articles on CSI: Miami episodes.
Keep and Rewrite in full.
Editus Reloaded 15:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- None of the other episodes in this season are written up yet. The page has sat as a stub since February with no information added. Deleting it doesn't mean it can't be revisited, it means that what we have here isn't worth keeping. If someone is going to rewrite it, it should be done speedily, because right now it reflects poorly on the project, the show and wikipedia. I think we'd be better served trashing it and starting over. --
  Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 16:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok, I'm sold. After that, we should maybe go back through the ep lists for the shows and try to create full articles for them, working down through the episodes. I posted that as the first task on the project page and to complete, say, all the eps for CSI:V would be a major achievement and a good thing to post on the project page as a milestone. Side note re character/cast lists: If it's not a frequented page, let's just get on with the merge. There's a reason why we have the revert option.
    Editus Reloaded 17:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - _ _ For shame! These new excuses are still not contemplated by CSD, which is called Criteria of speedy deletion bcz it lists a specific criterion for every valid reason.
    _ _ Nor is it part of, or even remotely consistent with, WP's methods to delete accurate info bcz it "looks bad". If you have another approach in mind, it is you who must implement it, with as much urgency as you find appropriate, but you may neither throw out valid info just for appearances' sake (even with a promise to later replace it with something better) nor set deadlines for work by your colleagues.
    --Jerzy•t 19:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (Response added via careful ed-conf, w/o responding to 2 cmts posted since i began the following:)
  Indeed, non-conformity to templates does not make an article's info worthless. Since dedication to the CSI and the corresponding WP articles is far too little for me to look over the template, i'll just mention in passing that if a non-conforming article has information that doesn't fit the template, it's always worth noting on the article's talk page any info dropped for that reason. (In some cases, it's worth discussing, on the template's talk page, whether the pattern of such deletions suggests a need for extending the template or establishing approaches for adding worthwhile info to pages that transclude the template.
  --Jerzy•t 19:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Pattern of deletions? This is the only existing episode article for any of the CSI shows that does not fit the pattern set by other, and what a job it makes of not conforming. No plot, no context, copyediting issues ("homicide" not "homocide", I finished a Latin GCSE yesterday). Editus Reloaded 06:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Responses added via careful ed-conf, w/o responding to 2 cmts posted since i began the following:)
_ _ The careless CSD-tagger (who makes me sound clueless by attributing to me an interest in an imaginary person, despite my accurately lk'g a WP bio) needs to consult WP:CSD, where they should learn that vandalism is the only intention that can in itself justify a CSD tag. I would thus simply remove the tag and summarize

No valid CSD cited nor applicable

if CSD did not forbid that step by the creator of the article.
_ _ I suppose i asked for trouble by waxing conversational in talking abt what triggered my edit, but ed'rs should not attempt the mind-reading feat of determining what is solely another's intention. I was indeed seeking the answer. (That answer is yes, per the first entry above his dual-year-'06/'07 ones at his (since updated) IMDb page, which is ext-lk'd from his bio). But the rest of my intention is what makes that question on topic: that the answer implies information that belongs in the accompanying tagged article. And note that the tagged article is like episode articles we have for many other shows. (In fact, ~~the tagger hints elsewhere that there are such articles for episodes of previous seasons of this show.~~ deletion of the accompanying article would introduce a rdlk in List of CSI: Miami episodes for Season 5: (2006-2007).)
_ _ New editors eventually catch on that we seldom write perfect articles, that stub tags such as my initial edit included make that explicit, and that we generally get coherant sets of articles (like those on a season's episodes) by writing them one at a time.
--Jerzy•t 19:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - "Careless CSD-tagger"? Don't get into an ad hominem attack just cos you disagree with Ipstenu's edits - WP:NPA. Editus Reloaded 06:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My thought was this is a page that has existed for months, the format needs help, the summary of the episode is less than what's on the Episode list page, and since the page needs a total re-write to bring it up to standard, we may as well trash it and come back to it when we have all the information at our fingertips, rather than to leave a lackluster episode. I'm well aware that the perfect article is a myth, but given the sheer amount of work that would need to go into making this 'average' begins with tossing out everything we have now anyway. And pardon my typos for leaving off 'jr' for Ed's name, I'm not perfect either ;) As for red links, I think that it's better to have a red-link than to have a stub page with no useful information.

The page starts with 'gimmicks include...' but provides zero context for the gimmicks. Then it goes on to detail a subplot, without ever addressing the plot. The format is non-narrative and fails to provide a basic summary of the episode. I'm not qualified to write it up, and since February no one else has stepped up. Starting over hurts nothing, and if this doesn't CFD, which I know it may not, then we may as well redirect it to the episode list page until we can figure something out. -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 19:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Although it's a small pain to have to scrap it and start over, I'm not able to rewrite the episode (not aired in the UK!) and neither, apparently, is Ipstenu. If keeping this article really matters to you, then rewrite it following the CSI episode template, with a full plot summary, infobox and suitable external links. Editus Reloaded 06:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have been trumped by an admin. The article stays, but since none of us can rewrite it will likely stay here in its current form for some time. Much to the satisfaction of Ed Begley, Jr. fans *injects industrial dose of irony into voice*. Editus Reloaded 15:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]