User talk:Matthewedwards/Archives/2008/10

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Walter A. Brown Trophy winners/archive1

Any reason why you failed this FLC? All of TRM's comments were resolved, he didn't reply or strike out his oppose after they were. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie » 23:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, MFC. I felt that consensus hadn't been reached either way. Neither Killervogel nor TRM gave any further feedback, and after 16 days the nom had gone a little stale. I think if you restart it it'll get more attention :) Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The Rambling Man

Since his gone and Cannibaloki has fixed all the problems those his vote count cause hes not able to change it before he comes back and that may take a while wouldn't it. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 17:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Not gone, not quite yet... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know which FLC you're referring to. And as he says, he's not gone yet! Let him return to his comments and see if he changes any of his opposes. Often times people don't, and a decision occasionally has to be made in their absence whether their opposes are still valid or if they have been addressed. That isn't the case here. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

List naming conventions

Hi again and thanks for your message. It looks like SMcCandlish and yourself have the issue well thought-out, but, if some more supporting opinion is needed anywhere, by all means leave another message. (Incidentally, SMcCandlish also saw and contributed to this recently. Personally, I'm not taken by dashes in article names, but realize they can aid brevity.) Sardanaphalus (talk) 23:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

FLC reviews

I noticed that a few recently promoted FLs had some prose issues that weren't brought up during FLC. I guess I'm going to go back to reviewing as much as I can, and I'm going to start kicking ass and taking names. We'll need more prose reviewers as TRM slowly fades away (I hope he doesn't, though) so feel free to form an open invitation for that. Gary King (talk) 06:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Ack, that's not good. I always check before I do any promoting; if that's true I'm somewhat embarrassed I missed them. Yes, more reviewers are needed, even if TRM stays, but the question is how to seek them out? Could you email the names of the promoted lists to me, and I'll go through them. No need to embarrass anyone by naming them here. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 15:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It's fine; I'll just start reviewing more and hopefully that helps a bit. I remember you offered to build image maps some time ago; could you help me with this? Gary King (talk) 18:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I'll look around for a map and see what I can do. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I wish I could do more but a five-month sabbatical is on the cards. But, Gary, I'm glad you're going to kick some ass. About time! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Featured sounds - Criteria 2

I wouldn't worry too much about the technical language (I'll try and make a short summary in the criteria itself) - all Criteria 2 really says is that the recording should sound good, and not have really obvious flaws without a good reason, such as age or uniqueness. Trust me, if it had any of those technical problems listed, you would almost certainly know - they cause things like a robotic or unnatural sounding voice, static, and that sort of thing. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Please see WT:Only_make_links_that_are_relevant_to_the_context#Break 1 for the current discussion. I'm letting everyone know who has a comment on the relevant talk pages. Obviously, we're not going to push anything through without a full discussion of every issue, including whether to merge at all. My sense is that there's wide agreement on all the big points, but the devil is in the details. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Metal stretched

Template:WikiProject Metal this stretched, you can help me? Also take a look at Josh Homme discography's page history. (Already that you promoted...) Cannibaloki 06:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm.. where did the history go? I'm not too good with WikiProject templates, I'll take a look though. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

WRT the template, I reverted to the last known good version of it. I'll message the user who made the change and find out what happened, and if in reverting its lost any other info. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. And take a look in the Josh Homme albums discography. Cannibaloki 06:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Aah. The histories need merging. OK, NP. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Woohoo! thanks again. =P Cannibaloki 06:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

"The Other Woman" review

Hello, I have asked you before, but I have exhausted the list at PRV for editors willing to copyedit television, pop culture or anything if they are asked. Everyone is either busy, inactive or not qualified per past experience or archive searches. Before I go to the GOCE, are you interested in copyediting/reviewing the former/future FAC The Other Woman (Lost)? Deckiller deemed it worthy of another copyedit for his vote to be switched to support from neutral. Feel free to pass, but please reply. Thanks, –thedemonhog talk • edits 03:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Sorry I'm always late at these things. :( Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

FLCs and redirect

Hey, having redirected discussions in the logs for list promotes and fails is a problem for the bot. There are too many possibilities to sort out, so could you make sure the discussion page matches the article name? Gimmetrow 12:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Gimmetrow. If you are referring to Josh Homme discography, the problem was that the nominator had moved the page three times, and simply copy/pasted the content into each new article. I merged the histories but completely forgot about the FLC page. Very sorry about that, I'll make more of an attempt to remember in future. Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 04:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Ontario universities map

Thanks for the map! :) For Image:Universities in Ontario.svg how much trouble would it be to chop off the top of the province, since there are no schools there? Then the bottom perhaps can be zoomed in a bit. Anyways, that's not really that big of a deal. List of universities in British Columbia and List of universities in Quebec are also at FLC if you've got the time :) Thanks again! Gary King (talk) 15:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem. It was kinda fun once I got the hang of it. It wouldn't be too much trouble to chop the top off. However much the image was shortened by, I'd just deduct that from the y-axis coordinates. I was going to do that, but then I thought that someone without much knowledge of Ontario wouldn't realise some was chopped off, or if they did, why. At least this way it shows that there are no universities there. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Oops

Hi Matthew, I'm very sorry, but some how I managed to block your account instead of the vandal I was intending to whack. PhilKnight (talk) 18:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Not to worry -- I didn't even notice. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 19:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Deaths by age

Category:Deaths by age and it's sub-categories have been nominated for deletion. Having previously expressed an opinion on this category, if you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. --Pixelface (talk) 00:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

TNA BFG

Hi!, I'm not sure but I was told to come and ask you. Does TNA Bound for Glory fall under the criteria for FL. It is a small list but I was not sure.--WillC 01:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I actually don't think it falls under WP:LIST at all. It's nicely written, but it reads more as a normal article with a small embedded list. Definitely, though, I would suggest taking it to WP:GAN at some point, and then maybe even WP:FAC. WRT small lists, yeah, WP:FL doesn't usually go for lists with less than 10 entries as usually they can be merged into a parent article without much trouble. Have you spoken to User:iMatthew? He's a highly active member of the Professional wrestling WikiProject. Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 04:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Well I was directed to you by User:SRX. He told me to take it to GA but to check with you about FL. It is currently under a peer review so I can take it to GA. Now that you mentioned it I might just take it to FA if everything goes well at GAN. Thanks for the info.--WillC 05:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit

Your name is listed at WP:PRV, but seeing how you are the new FL director, you probably don't have time to copyedit articles, such as No Way Out (2004). If you can't, do you know of any other good copyeditors, because some at PRV aren't as active anymore.--S_RX 14:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done. It wasn't much; sorry. I just have no knowledge of wrestling, other than Ultimate Warrior and Macho Man Randy Savage from about 15 years ago. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much, I appreciate it what was done. To answer your question about the name of the PPV, it shouldn't be in italics since it was an event not available to everyone and it was restricted to those who paid, I hope that's right to meet WP:ITALICS.--S_RX 14:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion is needed

Hi Matthew, I've been working on the Nobel Prize in Chemistry page in hopes of getting it to FL status. I decided to add images to the table, (which is new to me, I have never ever had a FL with embedded images) and I want your opinion on which looks best. I originally had it like this, but it looked weird because that meant all of the names weren't aligned. Then I switched to this version which I also think looks good, but it looks weird because the images in the current version go right between two text columns. So, I switched over to this, where the images are on the left side of the table (but still on the right of the year), but it would be a forced column, so rows where there is no image would just have a big space in it. So, which do you think would look best? As well, a user suggested yesterday that the FLCon have a judge's choice prize for the best and/or most original list. That way, the guys who didn't choose to work on a cookie-cutter list would also have something to aim for. It sounds like a good idea to me. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. The first one did look strange, with some names appearing under the pictures and not being aligned with the others. The second wasn't too bad, though. Having the image column between two text columns wasn't really a problem for me (see List of United States presidents which does the same). I guess it all depends on whether you want to put a face to the name, in which case the name goes first, or do you want to put a name to a face, in which case the face goes first. But I like the third option the most. Just because WP doesn't have access to a picture at the moment, doesn't mean it will always be like that, and this option shows right where a picture should be placed should one become available and a user can easily put one there. So go with a forced column for sure, and go with your instinct on placing it to the right or left of the name. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 04:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the opinion. What do toy think of having "prizes" for the FLCon? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Another incentive to get involved, perhaps. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

So what categories should we have for that then? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Gossip Girl episodes/archive1

May I ask how this was so quickly archived? I wasn't able to log-in for the weekend since I can't type for long passages . –Howard the Duck 18:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe it was archived so quickly. It was open for sixteen days, and nominations can be closed after ten, whether promoted or archived. I left it open because no-one had offered a plain-and-clear Support or Oppose, just a bunch of comments. After 12 days someone opposed, and someone opposed on the sixteenth. By this time there were still other comments outstanding, as well as the comments of the two opposers. Given that, I felt the list clearly wasn't ready to be given the star at that time. Additionally, the nomination had turned into a WP:Peer review of sorts, which isn't really what WP:FLC is for. A lot of the concerns raised at the FLC would probably have been raised at PR if it was taken there, as I know that at least 3 of the reviewers the list got do participate in peer reviews.

Don't feel too badly about it not being promoted, either. I have nominated lists that were not promoted, and yeah, I know it's a pain to get a lot of criticism over your writing, but WP:There is no deadline, FLC will still be around, and so once the outstanding concerns have been addressed, feel free to renominate it. :) Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 04:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the reason why I wasn't able to act on the opposition was rather embarrassing (I can't type for during the weekend since I lifted heavy loads, and my palms hurt), and I would've acted on the opposition if I was physically able. Now that my hands are all well and dandy, I found out the candidancy was closed and I felt was not able to answer any of the opposition.

Plus the last time I went to PR nobody except for a bot acted there so I didn't even think of going there. –Howard the Duck 04:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, PR has gone under a bit of a revival in recent times (I don't know how long ago you were there), see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-09-15/Dispatches. While you may not be able to answer the opposition on the FLC nomination page, you can still address the points made and drop comments on those users' talk pages. Let me also say that as a writer of 8 episode-list FLs I didn't want to see it not promoted, but also felt that in the interest of the FLC process it had to be closed. We can't have nominations on there forever until they are good enough to be featured. There has to be a cutting off point somewhere. Again, feel free to nominate it once the outstanding concerns have been addressed (or not with an explaination why). Sorry about your hand, hope all is well Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't really expecting it to be promoted either (I thought using episode summaries from the CW was a good idea, turns out it wasn't), but I felt there were several unanswered opposition that should've been answered, such as the special episode being omitted from the list, then someone said the webisodes should've been included. (what should I do on those two contradicting statements? LOL.) I feel lazy going through their user talk pages, since it's for naught anyway since the nomination is closed.

As for PR, I guess I should've placed this there first, but I haven't really given it a thought; I dunno that it has been "revitalized" lately either. And my hands are good already, thanks. –Howard the Duck 05:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the CW and CTV summaries are designed to tease the reader into wanting to watch the episode, while we just have to write a non-biassed summary that describes the episode and which wouldn't leave the reader needing to watch it to understand. WRT the special episode, I guess it is different enough from the pilot to warrant mention. The webisodes I'm not so sure. Do they continue storylines seen in broadcast episodes, are they a different series with the same characters, or are they something like behind-the-scenes takes of the show? If it's the first, I would include them. If not, it might be worth just mentioning them and discussing them more in their own article or at Gossip Girl. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Open Music Model One Day in September Linda Schuyler Ida Makes a Movie Shuman Ghosemajumder Cathy Keenan The Kids of Degrassi Street Jake Epstein ANts P2P Maria Vacratsis Michael Kinney Yahoo! Directory Zoe Newman MUTE WCWM Stacie Mistysyn Dan Woods Poisoned Melissa DiMarco

Cleanup Shareaza Node (networking) Audiogalaxy Merge Lymphocytopenia Log cabin School shooting Add Sources Shenae Grimes Web directory Jason Mewes Wikify Necrophagist Joe Sewell Kappa Delta Rho Expand Alex Steele Eugene R. Black Emilie de Ravin

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 22:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

DTNG Intertitles

Oh, thank you. Yes, the episode was good, not the best, but good... at least in my eyes. Unfortunately, only Part One was broadcast, so I'll be waiting another week for Part Two. Yes, I do have the new intertitle separate and I will add it as soon as possible. MaxisManiac247 (talk) 06:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Metal

I'm not good with templates- I was changing it by comparing it to other similar banners. The main change (that LuciferMorgan asked me to make) was to add the 'list' class. I wasn't aware it was broken- I made the edit a long time ago. Could you possibly add the option for a list class for me? J Milburn (talk) 09:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Not really my forté, but I'll see what I can do. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 04:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It's already there. Just type {{WikiProject Metal| class=List}}. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I need your help. Urgent! Go to this page (I refer to the code, you must edit the page to view, of course); copy and paste all its content in the page of the template above, thanks. =P Cannibaloki 19:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done, I think. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 19:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Replace |BANNER_NAME = User:Cannibaloki/Sandbox2 to |BANNER_NAME = {{subst:FULLPAGENAME}} Cannibaloki 20:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Has a </includeonly> at the bottom of the template. Cannibaloki 20:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, all done, thanks for help! =) Cannibaloki 22:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: DYK for Nintendo DSi

I've still got six more that will appear on the main page soon :) Gary King (talk) 00:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: List of universities in British Columbia

Yeah, Nova Scotia if you can please. Thanks! There are only those four: British Columbia, Nova Scotia, Ontario, and Quebec. For the other provinces, they don't have enough universities for their own lists, so I've merged them into List of universities in Canada. Do you think it makes sense (and do you have the time?) to create a map containing the universities in that list – either all of them, or only the ones that aren't already in maps? Gary King (talk) 16:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The map looks weird at List of universities in Ontario. Gary King (talk) Today, 2:36 pm (UTC-4)

OK, working on Quebec and NS now. Ontario looks weird wrt to what? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

There's an extra line break at the top and there should be a space between the text and the map. I'll work on this in a few minutes if you don't want to. Gary King (talk) 18:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

If you don't mind. I don't really see it :/ Maybe after seeing the diffs I will. I made the same edit to {{BC Universities Map}}, too. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

{{Nova Scotia universities map}} – very nice, thanks! Gary King (talk) 00:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep that's all of them. For List of universities in Canada, most of the dots would be on the east coast if you did it, with a few scattered in the middle. It's up to you to decide if you think it would look nice and could potentially be useful or if it shouldn't be done :) Gary King (talk) 20:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Homer Simpson (disambiguation)

If you don't mind, I'd ask you to look at the history of this - it was an actual disambiguation page that got turned into a redirect and back. I can't see the deleted history, so I don't know if it was tagged by the same person who turned it back into a redirect again, but R3 (or, indeed, other redirect criteria) shouldn't be used as a way to mangle something into a speedy deletion when it was recently created as something other than a redirect. I'd appreciate you restoring this to the actual disambiguation page; you can certainly also list it for AfD at the same time if you think it ought to be deleted. Otherwise, I'm likely to put it up on DRV instead. Thanks in advance for reading and responding. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I did check the history of it before deleting, and saw that it used to be a disambig page, but it wasn't really necessary, as Wikipedia only has one article on Homer Simpson. The Homer from "Homer to the Max" doesn't have an article or need one, if anything he should be mentioned at Homer Simpson, but I'm not too familiar with character articles to be absolutely sure of that. Homer Simpson from the novel and film The Day of the Locust doesn't have an article either, but the book is linked to from Homer Simpson so if anyone was looking for that Homer, and went to The Simpsons's Homer article by accident, it is fairly easy to navigate to the article about the book. The dab page then became a redirect to Homer Simpson, changed back, changed again. I don't feel the disambig was necessary in this case, though if articles were made about The Locust's Homer or the other Simpsons Homer, I would say yeah, have it. When I deleted it, it was indeed a redirect to Homer Simpson, and after consulting with another admin, I deleted it as WP:CSD#R3 "a redirect based on an implausible typo". I understand that it wasn't a typo as such, but more an implausible phrase. I haven't restored it yet, just in case you change your mind and agree with my reasoning, but I'll be back on Wikipedia in about 2-3 hours from now. Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It's good to know that you looked at the page history - as you know, that's always supposed to happen before speedy deletion, but often it doesn't. It seems like this was based on your judgement that the page wasnt't needed; it's fine to apply your judgement that way, and in practice anyone with deletion bits has to do it sometimes, so I have no problem with that; but in general you shouldn't substitute your judgement over that of the community when something is genuinely disputed (which this is). I have no problem with this being restored and immediately AfDed, if you want to do that; putting this up for community input is probably the way to go from here. However, I do ask that you restore it, either way. Thanks. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, it's restored and AfDed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homer Simpson (disambiguation) for an open discussion. Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll comment there. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Renominating FLCs

I can renominate lists that didn't receive enough input immediately without prejudice right? — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 04:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure. There was nothing that seemed to be outstanding from any of them, unfortunately they just didn't generate consensus either way so I decided to archive them. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. IMO, this one seemed within the margin of error, but that's fine. I'll just renominate the bunch. Cheers, — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 07:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah maybe. I mean, I don't have an issue with the list or the nominations, but I'd rather be sure that community consensus has been reached and I couldn't based on one support, a comment that refs check out, and a couple of other minor things that were commented on. I always say "There is no deadline", so I just figured it would be better to have it re-nominated. Next time it happens it might be best to just "restart" the way Sandy does at FAC by placing them back to the top of the list. What do you think? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea. In these situations, the nominator is probably going to relist the nomination immediately, so this removes that problem. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 07:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

As I've said before, I'd rather have the lists archived sooner rather than linger around longer. This "refreshes" FLC in a way, because if a list has been at the bottom of the page for a while, then people tend to ignore it after a while. If it pops back up at the top, then it gets attention again. Gary King (talk) 19:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It would also help Matthew in determining consensus if you committed to an "oppose" or "support" !vote :p — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Advice on featured lists

Hi there. I read the Signpost interview, and enjoyed reading it. I did note the comments about how some subjects are under-represented. was wondering if you could say where I should go to for advice on which way to go with pages like Royal Medal (currently trying to fill in the redlinks - see the work done at Talk:Royal Medal) and Frieze of Parnassus? For example, there are only 6 red-links left for the pre-1965 period (when only two Royal Medals were awarded). Would it be possible to focus on that period as a separate list? Are there any featured lists of science awards around that I could look at? As for the frieze, I'm not quite sure which direction to take that in. Would you have any ideas? Carcharoth (talk) 13:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The best Nobel Prize lists seem to be List of Nobel laureates, List of Nobel laureates by country, List of Nobel laureates in Physics and List of Nobel laureates in Chemistry (which I see is a featured list candidate!). I'll pop in at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Nobel laureates in Chemistry and see what people are saying there. That covers the science award. Any advice on the frieze list? Carcharoth (talk) 13:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. It used to be twice as long, but it had to be edited down!

WRT to Royal Medal, a few redlinks won't mean it won't be featured, but I think if it went there now some people would ask for more to be turned into blue. They don't bother me so much. I think they can be an incentive for people to actually go and create the article. The list is upside down at the moment though. WP:Stand-alone lists says that they should appear in chronological order from oldest to newest. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I enjoyed reading Frieze of Parnassus, though I'm a bit confused by what the Official history column represents. To get it up to FL quality I would consider breaking the list up into four tables under four sections, north, east, south and west, with the relevant image in each section. Also put the two prose sections before the list, with that image of the Albert Memorial in the lead. Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Map comment

Someone brought up a map question. Not sure if you've got time to do it. If not, should be okay. Gary King (talk) 02:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I replied cause I don't really know what he means. BTW, what's happened to the Nova Scotia universities navbox at the bottom? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Navbox looks fine to me. Gary King (talk) 03:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, looks okay to me too now. The flags were missing before, and it was just the text of the image name that I could see. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 04:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

That happens when Wikipdia's image server goes down. Then all images go kaput. Gary King (talk) 05:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Russian Airplay

Sorry for the inconvenience, but I think this user is BBHS. You can check this for me? My problem with this user is he changing the Template:WPRock to a strange version (type personal taste); I ask you to revert to my editing, and protects the page (such as Template:HMM) inhibiting the redundant and misleading editions of this user. Regards, Cannibaloki 20:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought that template was protected. I'll re-protect it. I'm not a checkuser, so I'm not sure if it is him or not. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 20:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all. Cannibaloki 21:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Degrassi

Seeing tonight's edits to the Degrassi template, I was wondering if anything was currently being done to control the creation of character articles? It seems like all characters have articles rather than minor or unnotable characters being restricted to just the list? Either D:TNG and the various episode lists all being featured, it seems like the character list/articles would be the next big project if you want to aim for a Degrassi: The Next Generation featured topic (and probably merging those two soundtrack and the book list back to the main). Thoughts? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was wondering what to do about the books. There were a lot of Junior High and High books in the 80s, but I don't think even an article about those, and merging the DTNG books would be anything more than a C-Class. Putting them into the main DTNG article might be best. WRT a Featured character list, I would like to do it and model it somewhere inbetween your Meerkat Manor list and the Characters of Carnivale article. A lot of the character articles should probably be merged into the main list too. I think perhaps Emma Nelson, Manny Santos, and Marco Del Rossi could have pretty good articles, since they've garnered press attention due to certain character developments such as Emma's ravine blowjob, Manny's teen pregnancy, and Marco's teen homosexuality. There may be others that I can't think of right now, but for sure it's not many. I've semi-protected the template since it's transcluded onto many pages, but it will expire after a month. Hopefully the fans' excitement over new characters will have died down, and any articles that are created, such as K.C. Guthrie and Alli Bhandari, will get speedied. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 02:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd say the two books in the template could probably be merged. I can't imagine either has a ton of notability. For the 80s books, maybe a single series page could be brought up to at least GA status if it gets to be too long for the main article. The character list idea sounds good and I agree on most of the characters likely being mergeable. Only other one I can think of off the top of my head that might be worth checking for possible notability would be Spinner due to his ADHD and his having testicular cancer, Jimmy (shooting and the stem cell surgery when stem cell research is a hot button issue), and Craig (the whole bipolar arc and his cocaine addiction). I'd imagine most of those would have garnered some attention in media and/or various organizations focused on those issues. Good move on protecting the template. Looks like one of the new ones has already been speedied. Hopefully once the clean up/merging is done, folks will feel less inclined to go happy with the character articles. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

UK TV

[Copied from Jimbo's talk page... ref the Stephen Fry programme]

Matthew - theres another way which might suit you, without messing around with proxies. As a Bit who has lived abroad for a number of years, I use UKnova http://www.uknova.com to download torrents of UK TV- Its all legal and legit, as they only host torrents of programmes that are not currently commercially available. Something like the Stephen Fry programme will be up there for certain, assuming that the BBC have not already rushed this one to DVD ;-) Hope this helps •CHILLDOUBT• 14:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. I've never heard of that one, but I'll check it out. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: List naming conventions

Replied at User talk:SMcCandlish#List naming conventions. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 04:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter

Delivered: 17:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC) by MiszaBot (talk)

No thanks. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hey Matthew, thanks for the barnstar and good wishes. I'm looking forward to my trip but will miss the community - I hope to be able to pop in from time to time! All the best... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:PW newsletter spam

Regarding your post on the talk page, I believe it's because of User:Matthewedwards/new page design. This page contains the the WP:PW userbox, which adds you to Category:WikiProject Professional wrestling participants, and I think that this is what caused the bot to deliver the newsletter to you. Apologies for this, but I suggest that you remove the userbox from your subpage. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 17:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so it's all User:iMatthew's fault, huh! Thanks for letting me know. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh - haha! iMatthew (talk) 17:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

It's no problem. Glad we got this all cleared up. ;) ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 17:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Matt go on IRC if you can... ;) iMatthew (talk) 17:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Unprotect

Unprotect the WPRock template. Cannibaloki's version of the templates are having some problems, see Talk:Bryan Adams or Talk:Linkin Park, the template is muddled up some how, i can fix it if you unprotect the template. Thanks! --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 23:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

No, this is transcluded to many talk pages. Use {{editrequest}} on the template talk page explaining what is wrong, why it needs to be fixed, and how (your code). An admin will then take a look and either do it, or not do it. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 23:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

And I don't think it's "his version", it uses the basic template. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 23:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

interview

Nice interview, Matthew, and well-framed questions by David and Scropion, too. I feel guilty that I don't live up to my new reputation as a regular reviewer at FLC (and I'm not often at FAC these days, either)—it's all dates, dates, dates, and now trivial links to country names and the like. I look forward to a day when the linking issue has been sorted out on WP and I can return to reviewing. At the moment, the best I can hope for is to poke and prod every so often, to try to have a larger effect and encourage other reviewers.

One point: "It's little wonder then, that pop culture genres are popular." Western popular culture absolutely dominates that of most developing countries, for both genders, anglophones and non-anglophones, manual and information workers, christians and non-christians, and below the age of 15 that you specify (perhaps less for older people, depending on where). That is one thing that disappoints me in the world: it's all going to be hot, flat and crowded (as one commentator whose name escapes me put it); "flat" was a cultural reference. Tony (talk) 02:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

PS Can we work towards merging Lists, Stand-alond lists, Embedded list, and Pro and con lists, and MoS (lists of works)? It's absurd that they're all over the place. Tony (talk) 02:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Tony. I don't think anyone is expected to review every FLC or FAC, that's a little too much to ask for, and what you did with the criteria was above what probably a lot of people would have done. Reviewing at least some is better than not reviewing any, eh? The life of a recluse sounds appealing sometimes. I'd love to live in one of those tiny remote places with only a handful of people, living in a log cabin or something, surrounded by trees, waterfalls, etc, with just a radio (no TV) and the wild outdoors to keep me occupied. Instead I live in a densely populated desert city very close to Los Angeles.

I'd love to work towards merging all the above. Where to begin is the problem. Any ideas?

Categories

Hi, go to Category:Unassessed Discography articles and if possible, I need that you delete these "category talks". Cannibaloki 21:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Why? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Nothing, leave this. Cannibaloki 22:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

huh?

What is the solution for FLCs that receive no feedback? Nergaal (talk) 05:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

To archive as no consensus. Feel free to relist it straight away, though. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by David Bowie

You recently closed this FLC as not promoted. Can I ask why? The issues raised were addressed by me and the opposers reverted their original votes. It's a bit difficult to try to fix something if you don't know why it's broke. --JD554 (talk) 07:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for getting in touch. Before closing the nomination I discussed it with User:Scorpion0422, the other FLC director. While the two "oppose"s were stricken out, they weren't replaced with a "support" or any other indication that they felt it met the criteria that we hold Featured lists to. It was therefore as if the "opposes" were never there, and so they were simply neutral comments.

User:Ealdgyth rarely offers any support; she just comments whether references are reliable or not. By the way, the BBC link to everyhit.com at http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/chart/, so that gives some indication of reliability in my mind; however, there is always the Guinness Book of British Hit Singles & Albums and the new Virgin book (search for it on Amazon.co.uk). Gary Kind only had one comment about the layout, nothing about content, prose, or any of the other criteria.

The last comments to the nomination were made 11 days ago, and I understand from my own nominations how frustrating it is not to recieve as many comments as I'd like, and it's hard not to cross over the WP:CANVASS line, but asking those who have commented to return and provide feedback or followup comments is generally allowed (as long as the wording is right -- not "I resolved your issues, please support", which I have seen!). As such, I could only go on SrX's comments, and while they may have been resolved, one or two people commenting does not constitute a community consensus.

Unfortunately, this is happening all too often at WP:FL. Either people comment, the nominator works hard to resolve their concerns, but the reviewer doesn't return, or the nomination simply does not get enough reviews in the first place. By all means feel free to immediately renominate, and let Gary and SrX know that it has been renominated. You may also wish to drop notes at relevant WikiProjects, such as the Rock Music Project and the David Bowie Project (if such a project exists), taking care not to court "support" !votes. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thanks for the tips. --JD554 (talk) 08:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Rock music (again)

This edition, that was made by BBHS, proves what I told you about on this old message. I need that you warning BBHS to do not change the templates for more personal taste, after all, this is already becoming tiresome. Regards, Cannibaloki 02:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Its SOMETHING WRONG WITH YOUR FREAKING TEMPLATE, ITS NOTHING TO DO WITH MY PERSONNAL TASTE, STOP VANDALISING THE TEMPLATE. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 06:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

RE:Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Presidents of the United States

Hey Matt, can you give the above a look-over and see where you stand on it? Thanks, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 03:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser match

Per your request, I ran the checkuser and found that user:Be Black Hole Sun and User:Russian Airplay are the same. Raul654 (talk) 07:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of acquisitions by Hewlett-Packard

I realized that this nomination has pass ten days already. So I am wondering you could give me a little more time before closing it. This might not be fair, since you are the FL director and have to treat every nom equally by not giving special treatment to someone. But I almost address every concerns, and I just need some more time. Thanks.—Chris! _ct 06:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Re:FLC Backlog

No problem :) I was looking to review those that were backlogged, and saw that some were promoted/not promoted, so I updated it.--S_RX 10:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Notice of request for deletion of editor Matthewedwards/Archives/2008 :)

Matthewedwards/Archives/2008, the editor you are, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that you satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space. Your opinions on yourself are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at User:GlassCobra/Editor for deletion#Matthewedwards/Archives/2008 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit during the discussion but should not remove the nomination (unless you wish not to participate); such removal will not end the deletion discussion (actually it will). Thank you, and have a good sense of humor :).

Image mapping

I know your experienced with image mapping, and just wanted to ask your opinion on something. I was wondering if in principle mapping is allowed in infoboxes, for example, to identify characters (like this). Obviously it gives its problems, like pushing the caption further down, and in this case the caption itself gives all the information, I was just wondering if it might be useful for a season which just has a poster (like these S2, S4). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I messed around within the article as I couldn't see another way with it being non-free and all, and my poor first attempt at mapping is probably an insult to your eyes for which I apologise.

Hi. The mapping is actually quite a good idea, and pretty well executed as well. Whether it's allowed in infoboxes or not I'm not sure about, but I don't see why it would be disallowed. I don't think that the caption being pushed down is much of an issue, but if you don't like it you could make it part of the image mapping and leave the caption field of the infobox blank. The only thing about that is that it may end up looking like a thumbnailed image inside the infobox. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 19:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok cheers, I have put it in an infobox here and with the caption fix I think it works quite well. Thanks for your input on this. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Update on FAC/FAR/FL closings

See User talk:Marskell#Update on FAC/FAR/FL closings. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Graphics in FLC

Just for the future, I'd appreciate a talk page message rather than a public shaming. Thanks. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 12:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. I removed them and said what I was doing in the edit summary. It wasn't intended as a public shaming, just a friendly note. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it felt like it because you used my name in the edit summary. That policy, AFAIK, wasn't around a month to a month and a half ago when I was last active on a regular basis. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 15:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Bullet for My Valentine

Hi, I created a discography for this band, I'm not a fan of their musical style, but enjoyed the fact that they have multiple charts entries (different of bands that I listen; type Defeated Sanity, which certainly never entered in a chart). The fact is that after creating the whole chassis of the discography (although I must the lead text) I went to the page of the band and removed the information of the discography section, but a user reverted my edition, ignoring the fact that there is an new main detailed list on the same section. In resume, this user in question has already reverted my edits three times, insisting on a completely ignorance of which the page that I created is useless (!!!) (I understand well). I need your help, this is it. Cannibaloki 18:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Discuss it at Talk:Bullet for My Valentine before someone else comes along and warns or blocks you both! Matthewedwards 19:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, your input on list improvements

Can you visit this discussion as your input would be appreciated here about improving wrestling championship lists.--S_RX 20:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I saw that you commented on the project talk page but in a different post and not the one I linked above, just making sure :)--S_RX 22:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I assumed you meant the thread I'd already commented in. I'll respond soon. Matthewedwards 04:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Holy guacamole

I guess we know how we're spending our Tuesdays and Saturdays !! [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I know. I saw that you added a bunch earlier, too! I think it might be a good thing all around though. It also allows for discussions to be kept open longer, which allows more time for editors to attempt to respond to concerns and for reviewers who don't spend all day, each and every day, on WP to have a better chance of taking part in the discussions. And the work that would be involved if Gimmetrow had instead decided to retire the bot is a little overwhelming! Matthewedwards 20:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Links in quotes

Just pointing out something that could be a perennial issue for lists (not sure what the attitude has been in previous discussions about lists). See here and here. Carcharoth (talk) 01:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for not only the super-fast reply, but showing me how to fix that table issue. You're right, it helps a lot to have a slightly thicker line separating the entries. I've fixed all three issues you brought up. Thank you so much, Matthew! Ariel♥Gold 04:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! Matthewedwards 04:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Musical road

On 29 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Musical road, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 07:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to give you a congrats on a good article

I grew up in the 80's and had totally forgotten about Degrassi, which I was a huge fan of when I was a tween. So about a month ago, I was browsing cable and saw that there was this 'New Generation', which made me laugh, but I have become a huge fan of the new show and wanted to give you props for a great article that has helped me catch up on what I am seeing, even though I should watch the show and not read up on it. Cheers. Whippletheduck (talk) 02:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

FAC Batman (1989 film)

I fixed your concerns (as well as the other editors' concerns) with the article. That would be very nice of you concerning the People article. Thanks. Wildroot (talk) 03:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Do you have email enabled? I'd rather not copy the entire text to Wikipedia. Matthewedwards 04:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's wildroot16@gmail.com. Once again, thanks. Wildroot (talk) 16:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Your offer for a peer review

Thank you for your kind words with respect to Premiere (The O.C.). In the future I hope to take you up on your offer to peer review it to FAC standard. For now though would it be possible for you to take a look at The O.C. (season 4) and review the last season left in the series. It follows the same structure as the others but as the last season I have also added a section on the shows cancelation. Please let me know if you don't think this is appropriate in this article.

Thanks in advance, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'll try to get something in tonight or tomorrow, but more than likely it will be Thursday. Matthewedwards 05:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The review is much appreciated. I have addressed the issues raised, please could you look over the few things I've questioned there when you have time. Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)