User talk:McDoobAU93/Archive/2014

Wikiproject discussion

Just an FYI that a discussion is underway at WikiProject Amusement Parks, and your feedback would be appreciated. Thought I'd drop you a line in case the page isn't on your watchlist. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Amusement Parks Article Clean-Up

Recently, an issue has been brought up regarding the notability of many articles within WikiProject Amusement Parks. As a result, a page has been created regarding this issue as well as a possible solution (which will be on-going). In a nut-shell, certain articles will be picked to be reviewed in each stage and the WikiProject members (you) will decide if the article should be deleted or kept based on Wikipedia's notability guidelines.

I hoping this will work and if it doesn't, oh well...I tried.

More info can be found on the linked page above.--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC) Sent by Dom497

Removing TV ratings for Disney TV cartoons

Why are you removing it? Don't you see? "Gummi Bears", "Talespin", "Mickey Mouse Works", "House of Mouse", "DuckTales", and even "Jungle Cubs" are not aimed at preschoolers! --68.170.223.134 (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying it is or it isn't for preschoolers. Removing the ratings solves the problem of suggesting who the target audiences might be. Again, I encourage you to read this section for additional details. --McDoobAU93 02:15, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

What good faith?

My edit to the Angry Birds page was not bad,as you said,it was good faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1:1C00:63B:25AC:C769:19B0:8564 (talk) 15:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Good-faith in this case refers to that I believe you meant well with your edit, but even so the edit was inappropriate. As I said in my edit summary, there's no citation of this reference, no mention of why this particular reference is notable and no reference stating that the producers actually intended to mimic Angry Birds. Without any of that, we're left with your personal opinion that that is what Annoying Orange was trying to parody. --McDoobAU93 15:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

in the Angry Birds page,it was truly good faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1:1C00:63B:25AC:C769:19B0:8564 (talk) 16:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I think you think "good faith" means something other than what it does. It means that I don't think you were doing anything to harm the article, but that said the edit was not appropriate and was thus removed. Please read this section for more information. --McDoobAU93 16:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Ed McGowin

Please see note on your DYK review. Yoninah (talk) 01:16, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Tagging

Hi,

You seem to be adding template:linkrot to pages where this is not applicable, such as Charles Leno, Jr., while not adding that tag to pages where it would be helpful to do so, such as Giovanni Abate.

Also, you added template:BLP sources to B. E. Doxat-Pratt, who was born 1886.

Superp (talk) 07:00, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Your point is taken, but I do request you read this section before determining whether this notification is truly appropriate. To save some time, here's the key statement: "A full citation, in contrast, gives the author, title, publisher, publication, and date of the work. So, if the web site address changes, the additional information may assist in finding the new location. If the source is no longer available on the internet, then the additional information may assist in tracking down the source if it is in printed form, microfiche archives, article/paper collections, published as books, and the like." If you'll notice, these articles' citations are just URLs, which are indeed subject to link rot. Thanks. --McDoobAU93 13:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Euhm, not to be pedantic, but the doc for the template has a definition of what constitutes bare URLs. Happy editing. Superp (talk) 22:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

After looking at the doc again, and looking at the cited article again, I honestly don't know what you're on about. From WP:BAREURLS:

"A bare URL is a URL cited as a reference for some information in an article without any accompanying information about the linked page. In other words, it is just the text out of the URL bar of your browser copied and pasted into the Wiki text, inserted between the <ref> tags or simply provided as an external link, without title, author, date, or any of the usual information necessary for a bibliographic citation."

Three of the four referenced links in the Charles Leno, Jr. article meet this criteria, thus the tag is correct since the article does indeed contain bare URLs. The tag does not say "all" the references are bare, although frankly that fourth one still needs more info to prevent link rot.

Apparently you can't accept a good-faith recommendation that something in the article needs to be fixed for the reason cited in the tag. If you feel the tags are in error, be bold and remove them, then, as you apparently did. I saw something wrong and I tagged it. If you feel it's incorrect or unwarranted, remove the tag and move along. Frankly, and constructively, you're reading the document wrong, and I have retagged the article accordingly along with an edit summary backing up my reasoning. --McDoobAU93 23:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, no, none of those refs are bare URLs. Just trying to help you understand the tag you are using. Never mind, stay cool. Superp (talk) 07:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

How about instead of saying they aren't, how about proving they aren't? Explain how you're interpreting the policy. I've explained my side, and now it's your turn. --McDoobAU93 12:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Glad you ask! The four refs (no, not the four refs) at Charles Leno, Jr. (which, incidentally, I never edited before), all contain a title or other description. The docs in my view are pretty clear:

A bare URL is a URL cited as a reference for some information in an article without any accompanying information about the linked page. In other words, it is just the text out of the URL bar of your browser copied and pasted into the Wiki text, inserted between the <ref> tags or simply provided as an external link, without title, author, date, or any of the usual information necessary for a bibliographic citation.

Wikipedia:Bare URLs

1. This is a bare URL: http://www.deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws/cultuur+en+media/kunsten/1.1845520, as it has no information fit for human consumption, no title, no description, just the URL. It is reader-unfriendly, and a complete nightmare when it goes 404.
2. This is not a bare URL: "Tuymans overtreedt de norm van het goed fatsoen", as it describes the target (in this case, as is common, using the page title).
3. Technically, this too is not a bare URL, though it gives the reader or editor no clue where it is targeted, or how the target can be found if the URL changes
4. For refs, this is ideal: Cardoen, Sandra (23 January 2014). "Tuymans overtreedt de norm van het goed fatsoen". De Redactie (in Dutch). Retrieved 24 June 2014.

Type 2 refs may sometimes need improvement, but should not be tagged as if they were type 1, just as you do not call the fire brigade when you want your windows cleaned (I hope). I think I understand what you are trying to flag: these are not canonical type 4 refs yet. But they are not bare URLs. Peace and happy editing. Superp (talk) 17:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Assuming you left the building; I'm no longer watching this page. Superp (talk) 19:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I did review the page again and saw what you were saying and am making better use of it going forward. Thanks for your input! --McDoobAU93 19:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Glad we settled this in a productive way. Thanks for the star! Next time you do the smacking. Cheers! Superp (talk) 19:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)