User talk:J Greb/Archive Jun 2013

Orphaned non-free media (File:Wildthyme On Top.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Wildthyme On Top.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Excelis Dawns.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Excelis Dawns.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

unmerging

Well then. I understand that it might not go against notability guidelines. Also a article being bad written is no excuse for merge. But you're bold merges (with no consensus) were contested. Therefore consensus needs to be established. I don't really plan to unmerge a lot of them at all. I usually feel like merging is better. But a character that is going to be in a feature film and appeared in Smallville along with having a alternative versions of themselves makes being described a "minor" character not seem right. But then again I do have a little bit of a bias. One reason there is a lot more minor characters still around as articles that are even minor and are written worse than her. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 02:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Also keep in mind that notability isn't proven that doesn't mean they are not. Even Darkseid doesn't really have enough reliable sources to officially prove notability guidelines....and he is one of the better sourced major villains of Supes. There is plenty of sources regarding her casting in really major websites which is as good as you get with comic book characters. I know that's just the movie but that's better than the character's who are still around with articles who never went to feature film. Usually books are the best proof of notability on the internet for comic book characters because the internet (besides Comic Book Resources) don't have much information on these characters on reliable sources. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 02:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Frankly, the bold merges are side effects of trimming the unneeded, unwarranted, and unsupported material out of the articles. There isn't a lot to these characters.

Aside from that:

• That there are articles on less used characters in worse states than these isn't a reason to keep these. It's more a way to create a list of other articles to look at and fix.
• I'll repeat: If there are secondary, third party sources discussing how the character is adapted and used in the show or film, then there is reason to expand, or have, an article to cover it. But if all we have is "The character was played by Actor in Film, see the film article for a summary of the story.", there is little reason to break the article back out.
• And alt versions are a bit worse. In a lot of cases they are one panel walk ons. They are there to clue in the fan who bought the book that, "Yes, this is Superman, now on with our story," nothing more.

(Added)

• That take on notability can boil down to "The character is notable because I say it is." As for the casting notes/news bites: Are they there because the actress is notable, the film is notable, or the character? Remember, notability doesn't rub off from one to the other.

- J Greb (talk) 02:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and put back Sam Lane. Still not sure of the other one...but it's late for me where I am at. I am not saying the character is notable at all. I am saying the character might be. Didn't you notice I said that "I understand that it might not go against notability guidelines." Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 02:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Primary

Do you have a better word for primary. That one editor didn't care about "other X" and you don't care about "Primary X". But mostly all of the editors seem to be ok with the division between the two. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Doctor Alchemy

In case you haven't noticed the Doctor Alchemy article was unmerged today and i have issues about that that I discussed on the discussion page (which I am sure you do as well). Also Ursa (comics) was unmerged as well. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 17:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Ursa I've flipped back. Some of the non-plot material may be good to move, but an article that is almost solely a plot dump (and a re-has of the film article to boot) isn't needed.

As for Doctor Alchemy... same situation, though there is a bit of added discussion now.

- J Greb (talk) 22:57, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

NOTFORUM Troll

The IP you recently blocked, 69.74.186.240 (talk · contribs), is the annoying troll Veryverser (talk · contribs), using the same IP he did previously (for a change). Veryverser always proudly signs his posts, as he did with this IP again. FYI. Doc talk 03:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you see what I mean?[1] Cheers... Doc talk 03:46, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

<sigh> And I really don't want to wind up semi-protecting that talk page... - J Greb (talk) 18:49, 23 June 2013 (UTC)