Welcome to destall.com on July 9 2009.
This is an internet experiment running to monitor browsing habbits of individuals through wikipedia contents.

User talk:Collectonian

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
This user helped to make List of Trinity Blood episodes a featured list (promoted January 2, 2008) This user helped to make List of Meerkat Manor episodes a featured list (promoted January 18, 2008) This user helped to make Texas AgriLife Extension Service a Did You Know article on January 21, 2008 This user helped to make Meerkat Manor a featured article (promoted January 28, 2008) This user helped to make List of Meerkat Manor meerkats a featured list (promoted March 13, 2008) This user helped to make U-Drop Inn a Did You Know article on March 28, 2008 This user helped to make Meerkat Manor a featured topic (promoted April 12, 2008) This user helped to make Meerkat Manor: The Story Begins a Did You Know article on July 1, 2008 This user helped to make Meerkat Manor: The Story Begins a Good article on July 3, 2008 This user helped to make Tokyo Mew Mew a Good article on August 19, 2008 This user helped to make City College (Florida) a Did You Know article on September 2, 2008 This user helped to make Category 6: Day of Destruction a Did You Know article on September 16, 2008 This user helped to make Category 6: Day of Destruction a Good article on October 4, 2008 This user helped to make Shojo Beat a Good article on October 6, 2008 This user helped to make Tokyo Mew Mew a featured article (promoted October 16, 2008) This user helped to make Grizzly Rage a Good article on October 22, 2008 This user helped to make Animerica a Did You Know article on October 24, 2008 This user helped to make Shonen Jump (magazine) a Good article on October 28, 2008 This user helped to make Maneater (film) a Good article on November 12, 2008 This user helped to make List of Marmalade Boy chapters a featured list (promoted November 15, 2008) This user helped to make List of Tokyo Mew Mew chapters a featured list (promoted November 15, 2008) This user helped to make Hershey Creamery Company a Did You Know article on January 10, 2009 This user helped to make White Dog a Did You Know article on February 1, 2009 This user helped to make White Dog a Good article on March 5, 2009 This user helped to make White Dog (book) a Did You Know article on March 27, 2009 This user helped to make The Lover (2004 novel) a Did You Know article on March 29, 2009 This user helped to make U-Drop Inn a Good article on April 14, 2009 This user helped to make Hershey Creamery Company a Good article on April 26, 2009 This user helped to make Post Oak Mall a Good article on April 26, 2009 This user helped to make The Skeptic (film) a Did You Know article on May 16, 2009 This user helped to make List of Tokyo Mew characters a featured list (promoted May 20, 2009) This user helped to make The Fox and the Hound (novel) a Did You Know article on June 8, 2009 This user helped to make The Lover (film) a Did You Know article on June 13, 2009 This user helped to make The Fox and the Hound (novel) a Good article on July 7, 2009
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Any sections older than 3 days are automatically archived.

Contents

First things first...I am a SHE not a HE, so please refer to me by the correct gender-pronoun. :-) Want to know more about me and my editing here, go to my actual user page.

I prefer to reply to comments on the page they were left, so if I left a comment on your page, reply there it is on my watch list. If you leave a comment here, watch this page until the discussion is done as I will only leave replies here and am disinclined to use those talkback templates.

Comments which I find to be uncivil, full of vulgarities, an attempt at flame baiting, or that are excessively rude may be deleted without response. Comments from harassing editors or wikihounders will also be summarily removed without response. If I choose not to answer, that's my right, so don't keep putting it back. I'll just delete and get annoyed at you.


[edit] Lupin III

Do you want to start this GA review now? I'm on a week off from work, and I'm not planning to do a great amount except play some games, watch some anime and learn some bass. So really it's perfect timing. Lupin Encyclopedia as a source is discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Lupin Encylopedia. Dandy Sephy (talk) 01:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, since I haven't done my ones for the week yet. Will start after I nibble some dinner :D -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay, done ~ducks!~ -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
See, this is why I picked this week to do it :P It's far easier to do with a list in front of me. Dandy Sephy (talk) 02:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
LOL, hopefully the bulk can be done this week :-) I think some of my Animerica issues mention Lupin, so I'll make some time this week to go through them during the week and post any notes that might be useful for expansion. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually the hardest part will be a soundtrack article, fixing the parent article is childs play in comparison :p Lupin encylopedia lists 42 albums for crying out loud! Thats without singles, and doesn't include the vinyls! And heres the kicker, I know stuff thats missing from the list.... List of Lupin III soundtracks not already existing is actually quite surprising, given how popular Yuji Ohno's jazz stylings are. Dandy Sephy (talk) 02:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
@_@ That is insane. I suspect that list doesn't exist yet cause no one wants to tackle all those soundtracks :P -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, lucky me :( The question is, will a simple list be able to achieve notability in the same way as a character or episode list? Because theres no chance I'll make anything more then a simple list right away. And it's highly unlikely I'll be able to do it in prose in the main article :P Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd probably work on it in your sandbox first so you can take your time working on it. It would need a decent lead and at least some sourcing for the various soundtracks with the release dates at the least to show its a valid size split. I think trying to do a full blown soundtrack list would be a long term challenge :D -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, the obvious candidates are the main Tv soundtracks and the Movies (say 6-12 albums). The tv Specials, remixes and compilations can wait :P Do we have any good example pages for albums? Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
The various Final Fantasy discographies are all (or almost all) GA, though I can't say I fully agree with it. List of Final Fantasy compilation albums is a featured list, and Discography of the Final Fantasy VII series is a failed FAC (primarily failure issues were prose and formatting), but is currently a GA and an A class. Those might be good ones to look at for dealing with this type of discography/soundtrack listing. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
For some intra-project examples, have a look at List of Aria (manga) soundtracks and List of Tsubasa: Reservoir Chronicle albums. KrebMarkt is responsible for both of those (with some help from Quasirandom for the Aria list), so he may be willing to help on a Lupin one as well. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 17:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
And, of course, I misattributed one of the lists - Tsubasa was done by AngelFire3423, not by KrebMarkt. =P 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 18:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks man, these will all come in handy. Dandy Sephy (talk) 09:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Have you seen my comment on the GA about the games? Dandy Sephy (talk) 09:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, going to reread now (and respond) now :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I've added a checklist to the GAR to make it easier to see what is left to do. I've left some comment and would like you to go over some of it to see if you agree. If you agree specific issues have been addressed, go ahead and strike it. If not, either leave hidden comments in the article to highlight them, or leave a comment. Dandy Sephy (talk) 21:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Will do, thanks :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

And we now have a basic sandbox for the soundtracks! I'll probably get the movies done, sort out a basic lead then move to mainspace. I can do the monotony of adding other albums gradually via sandbox then move them over a few at a time at a later date. It gets funnier everytime, because not all the cds are released by one pubisher, and Lup Ency only lists the ones by VAP, and not Nippon Columbia. I'm oddly grateful I can't find reliable sources for everything, otherwise I'd be doing 60+ albums + rereleases (including on different media). Although I really want to find a reliable source proving that the anime was released on Betamax! Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Fun fun! Good luck with the Soundtrack. Betamax? Oh man...talk about ancient technology! I'll see if I can find anything too. I'm still going through my various Animerica issues for anything as well. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] a favor?

can you add Incidents at Disney parks to your watchlist for a few days while the monorail news is still new-and-exciting to those trying to add uncited or WP:OR info to that (and related) articles? Just would like an additional set of eyeballs to assist. Check the history to see the types of edits that are being made, updated, etc. Once the fever dies down, we should be back to a normal dull roar over there. SpikeJones (talk) 03:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure :), though might be good to do an RPP if its getting bad. They are usually granted for news things like this. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Did that earlier today, but thanks for the reminder if it hadn't been done. SpikeJones (talk) 03:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Thx for archiving. Oy. SpikeJones (talk) 05:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Quite welcome :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Hey

Just wanted to say hey cause I haven't talked to you in a long time...and keep up the excellent work :) Cruise meerkat (talk) 03:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi and thanks. Hope you are having a good summer. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Syfy

Deleted as per your request. Plastikspork (talk) 04:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you also perform the move as Sci Fi Channel (United States)‎ is currently move protected? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks again :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
No problem. I inadvertently performed a "double move", which helped clean up the SyFy redirect as well (as you probably noticed). Let me know if I can do anything else to help. Plastikspork (talk) 04:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if the move protection is really necessary any more; the reason it was originally applied was because of move warring between Sci Fi Channel (United States) and SCI FI, but since the station's been renamed, that shouldn't be a problem any longer. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 08:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd rather it stayed awhile, to avoid people trying to move it to SyFy like someone tried to do before it was properly moved. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Syfy logo color

I don't see how the shadow is a part of the logo, the on-screen Syfy graphic currently being used on the channel is just a white version of the logo, with no shadow whatsoever. The shadow is not a part of the logo. Gage (talk) 07:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The logo is white, and the on-screen one does have a shadow, just not as large. Please just STOP trying to change the logo. You continue trying to change it to a misrepresentation of the logo, which is not appropriate. Syfy released an official logo to a multitude of media outlets. All of them where completely white, with the greyish background and the drop shadow. Leave the proper logo in place. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Fox and the Hound (novel)

The article has PASSED to GA. Congratulations, and thank you for a well-written article! Best, Kathyrncelestewright (talk) 14:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you! -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Re: File source problem with File:Syfy_logo.svg

Sorry about that, Collectonian. However, I did create the file, yet it is under copyright of NBC Universal. All I used was Adobe Illustrator to create the file. However, the way I recreated the slogan wasn't perfect enough.

However, I have one question: What font was the slogan "Imagine Greater" written in?
~~LDEJRuff~~ (see what I've contributed) 14:58, 7 July 2009 (EDT)

No worries and no idea on the font. The current logo just uses the official one released to the media rather than a recreation to ensure accuracy. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Old logos

Hi! I would like an explanation about why displaying a no longer used logo would violate NONFREE. Is there a previous discussion that you could reference that would state this? From my understanding it is perfectly acceptable to post the various logos used previously. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Just because it is no longer used does not negate any copyrights or trademarks. And no, it is not "perfectly acceptable" to post the various logos, even if it is a long standing problem in lower quality company articles. Unless the logos are discussed critically in reliable sources itself, it is not appropriate nor useful to post the image, and it violates the requirements of fair use and WP:NONFREE. The logo does not convey any significant information nor does it have any historical significance. "It is generally accepted that company logos may appear in the infobox of articles on commercial companies, but note that, if challenged, it is the responsibility of those who wish to include the logo to prove that its use meets Wikipedia non-free content criteria" from Wikipedia:Logos#Uploading non-free logos. "When a historical logo is used, the caption should indicate this, and there should be a good reason for the use of the historical logo (whether the current logo is used or not) explained in the historical logo's fair use rationale" from Wikipedia:Logos#Logo choice. From WP:NONFREE: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Acceptable corporate use of logos is only for identification, not illustration. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay... The text in the logo caption stated it was an old logo, but the text states "and there should be a good reason for the use of the historical logo (whether the current logo is used or not) explained in the historical logo's fair use rationale." What are typical "good reasons"? Is there a discussion I could see that explains more about this? In addition I will see if I can find any reliable sources explaining the logo change. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I can't think of any discussions as no one has yet come up with a good reason that meets consensus except for historically notable logos, and even then I can't find one example where that was adequately shown in any quality article (note, I'm not looking at low quality articles as good examples, of course, because they frequently contain a range of policy and guideline violations). Simply saying "the logo changed" doesn't really meet the requirements either. Like any non-free image, it needs critical commentary or sourced statements showing it is significant to the readers understanding of the article, not just that it existed or was changed. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I found Wikipedia_talk:Logos#Historical_logos - There's something about Mike Godwin stating that "properly documented historical images" (in User:dhett's words) are okay for Wikipedia. Lemme read Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television_Stations/Archive_8#Weigh-in_from_Wikimedia_General_Counsel_on_logos WhisperToMe (talk) 04:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
After reading Godwin's opinion I looked at American Broadcasting Company as an example. There is no substantial body of article text with the word "logo," but historical logos are plastered throughout the article. The article has no extensive discussion about the significance or meaning of the logos, to my knowledge. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
There are also many discussions about that discussion at LOGOS. The opinion that it is not illegal does not mean it meets Wikipedia policy, and also came before the major changes in Non-Free and the stronger enforcement of those policies. American Broadcasting Company is B class that failed FAC, in large part because of the numerous MoS issues, and that was two years ago before non-free was even considered an issue. It is certainly not a quality article to be looked at as an example of what one should do. Again, violations in other articles is not a valid reason to perpetuate those violations in other articles. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I decided to look for more discussions. Godwin's letter was from April 2008. I think the gist of the discussion is that if one can legally display a series of historical logos according to U.S. fair use laws, then it fits Wikipedia's fair use system and is permitted in article. When I read Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television_Stations/Archive_8#Weigh-in_from_Wikimedia_General_Counsel_on_logos, which took place in May 2008, that discussion stated that it is kosher to display a series of historical logos to show the change of an identity of a company (in this case a TV station). I looked at the recent Wikipedia talk:Logos page and searched for the word "histo" to find discussion on historic images. User:dhett stated "Second, logos change from time to time, and use of a historical logo doesn't jeopardize the owner's potential to profit from it" in a post at "Changed to essay" on May 20, 2008.
When I looked at the "Proposed rewrite" from August 2008 Hroðulf asked about the "good reason" for historical logo phrase. J Milburn, who started the "Proposed rewrite" section, replied "I think we can all agree that we should be careful about the rationale of allowing such images- I just wanted to help clarify that the 'this is a logo, therefore it is allowed in articles' philosophy just isn't the way we should be thinking. I don't think specific policy on how much historical logos are 'allowed' is something we could just slip into a rewrite." - So far I haven't found a particular section where users concluded that historical logos must have an in-article section discussing their significance. On November 1, 2008 User:dhett stated in the "Historical logos" section "Mike Godwin, legal counsel for Wikipedia has been consulted and does not believe that the use of properly documented historical images violates any fair use laws. See link to discussion with Godwin's response." WhisperToMe (talk) 04:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Its very simple. WP:NONFREE. It still applies, no matter what the minor discussions which were mostly about station logos and sports logos, say. Its no different from any other non-free image. And the policy changed AFTER all those discussions. If you want to check current consensus to see if I'm right or if the use is allowed, ask at the non-free talk page. Until then, please leave the image out. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
In that case, I started Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#How.2C_when.2C_and_why_for_historical_logo - I will also link this from the WP:LOGO talk page. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Good...its probably time for a revisit of the issue. Meanwhile, thanks for catching that error on Viz's site. I had removed some other OR, but hadn't had time to check that the sources were sourcing what was said! *doh* -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User page indexing

Please note Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User page indexing has been repurposed from the standard RFC format it was using into a strraw poll format. Please re-visit the RFC to ensure that your previous endorsement(s) are represented in the various proposals and endorse accordingly.

Notice delivery by xenobot 13:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Viz Mail redirect

Even though it was deleted, after a discussion here User_talk:Jclemens#Viz_Mail the deleting admin said I could re-create it. It doesn't fit any of the speedy criteria ("Viz Mail" was not a typo or a misnomer), but if you want you could use Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion on this matter. What do you think? WhisperToMe (talk) 16:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the deletion was valid and the redirects are beyond useless and silly. If you want to recreate despite the deleting admin showing you how it met policy, find, I'll take to RfD. No one uses the term VizMail for Viz's short lived thing except apparently you, and the actual usage for the B2B marketing is far more common, such as it is. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs)
It did not meet Speedy deletion criteria for a redirect, which specifically allows deletions of implausible typos and misnomers. What the admin showed me was a reason why it could be used as a valid reason for deletion, but that would only be the case during a discussion on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. The particular reason is not included in the speedy criteria. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
It is ready for Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, the venue which should be used in cases that do not meet the speedy criteria for redirects. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
So basically, you realize they were deleted validly, even if you disagree with the reason, and just felt like being POINTY and wasting people's times by forcing it thorough an RfD first? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
No. The admin agreed with your rationale, but it does not match the specific speedy criteria for deletion, so the admin should not have speedy deleted. As for your "POINT" arguement, I think the redirect should be kept, and I am going to post a rationale why the redirect should be kept. Speedy deletion is reserved for specific cases, and for redirects one of them are implausible typos and misnomers. Whenever a redirect does not match the reasons for speedy deletion, the redirect is kept. Collectionian, there are specific instance when one can use a speedy deletion; every other time you must use the regular deletion processes. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but I stand by this being a valid speedy reason. It is a useless redirect and a misnomer. VizMail is a company and a product, not some old Viz email service. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Misnomer: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/misnomer "a use of a wrong or inappropriate name b: a wrong name or inappropriate designation" - "Viz Mail" is being used as a redirect of a name of a branded service operated by a company to the company's page, not as a redirect from an implausible wrong name to a correct name. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Viz Mail is NOT a branded service that is operated by Viz Media anymore. The name has other, more valid uses and is there for a misnomer. Quoting me a dictionary as if I don't understand the term is rude and insulting. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I'll continue this on the discussion page :) WhisperToMe (talk) 17:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Collectonian"
Personal tools
Visit joltnews for the latest headlines
Visit bloit.com for company information
Geed Media does computer consulting on long island.
This page viewed times. See Logs