Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:25, 28 April 2014

Orphaned non-free media (File:Unheard on NBC Sept. 10th, 2012 broadcast end credits from "The New Normal" pilot.ogv)

Thanks for uploading File:Unheard on NBC Sept. 10th, 2012 broadcast end credits from "The New Normal" pilot.ogv. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (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 Misplaced Pages 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) 04:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Flash Video - MPEG-4 ASP, Real Video?

Hello, in the Flash video article you added information about Flash video support for MPEG-4 ASP and RealVideo compressions. Please, could you add any reference to these claims? I don't see any and I cannot find any reference that proves these claims. Are you sure that information is correct?--89.173.219.25 (talk) 22:09, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:TVNZ one logo.png

Thanks for uploading File:TVNZ one logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image 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 that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

October 2013

Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Space Milkshake. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thank you. Dl2000 (talk) 03:12, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

CI and History on Sky Television page

Hi Helmboy, I saw you undone my edit of who owns Crime & Investigation Network (Australia) and History (Australian television channel) on the Sky Television (New Zealand) page. I have since re-done my edits but thought I should communicate to you directly why I done so. I saw you decided to include information on how CI and History are international networks and only the Australian and New Zealand versions are owned and operated by Foxtel Networks, which I have left. However, the international versions are owned by A+E Networks, a joint venture between The Walt Disney Company (as you stated) and Hearst Corporation. Therefore, I have just changed it from saying Disney are the international owners to A+E Networks are. I hope that clarifies why I have done this. Thanks, Forbesy 777 (talk) 04:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. I have noticed that some of your recent genre changes, such as the one you made to List of digital television channels in Australia, have conflicted with our neutral point of view and verifiability policies. While we invite all users to contribute constructively to Misplaced Pages, we urge all editors to provide reliable sources for edits made. When others disagree, we recommend you to seek consensus for certain edits by discussing the matter on the article's talk page. Thank you. - Mike Beckham (talk) 11:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Blue Bloods Broadcast section

Hi Helmboy,

I saw you undone my reverting of your edit to the broadcast section of Blue Bloods and thought I would start a conversation with you about why I done it and your opinion on the topic. I have spent much time editing broadcast sections of multiple series to fit the guidelines set by WP:TVINTL by writing them in prose form instead of being listed in a giant table which includes all countries and not just the main Westernised countries as stipulated by WP:TVINTL. In saying that, I have never seen a broadcast section set out as you done on Blue Bloods, taking it as not fitting the guidelines and thus undoing it. However, after reviewing the guidelines for the millionth time I don't see anything wrong with the way you've set it out, except that it doesn't fit with the broadcast sections that are the norm for other series. Do you believe it to be necessary to have the countries separated into their geographical location, and their flag to be included? As the only countries to be included in the broadcast section are usually U.S.A., Canada, U.K., Australia and New Zealand, I'm wondering if it just wastes space by separating them.

Please reply on my talk page here anytime so we can figure out what should be done.

Thanks and happy holidays,

Forbesy 777 (talk) 00:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Helmboy. Thanks for removing the section headings. I'm glad to see we could come to an agreement of what should be done =). Happy holidays Forbesy 777 (talk) 01:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

International broadcast

WP:TVINTL says that the broadcast section should be detailed in prose form and that English-speaking countries should be listed. The exclusion of non-English countries has wide support and has been discussed at length. This edit is not prose, it is listification with inappropriate use of flags and includes non-English countries, so it doesn't comply with WP:TVINTL, MOS:FLAG or consensus. Sorry, but I have reverted the edited as it isn't an improvement on the table. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:08, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I have rewritten it as tables go against style recommendations in such sections. As for only being non english ,you should reread the guide, which states This section is best named simply "Broadcast" and also address broadcasting in the country of origin. Shows should be categorized by original broadcasters but not by other ones and countries that the series appears through prose form. If you still don't like it, then re-write it. If it gets reverted to the table version again, I'll have no other option and just remove the TV guide style violating listing. PS, the flag templates were kept for the ease of prose conversion.Helmboy (talk) 00:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:TVINTL ays "editors are encouraged to instead detail English-speaking countries". As I said, the exclusion of non-English countries has wide support. The international broadcast section was only recently discussed at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Television#International broadcasting discussion and before that in several discussions now archived to Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Television/Archive 2. Retention of flags to make things easy is not an excuse to violate MOS:FLAG. You should never half-do something. As for removing the section entirely just because it violates a guideline would be considered disruptive. Guidelines are not hard and fast rules that we absolutely have to follow. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Besides the TV style guide, prose does look cleaner and clearer than a bloated table. As for the limits on only listing native-speaking countries, that's highly debatable as a number of countries such as in Mexico don't dub over the soundtrack and just provide translation via either burnt-in or selectable subtitling. As for MOS:FLAG, there is nothing there that says they can't be used in prose, just not in info boxes.Helmboy (talk) 09:46, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Check out WP:NOICONS, which specifically discourages the use of flags in prose. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe the case of a paragraph that lists multiple countries with flags would be an exception as it would help the reader locate a specific sentence. The alternative would be to paragraph every sentence which would effectively create a list instead of prose. WP:NOICONS in terms of prose more refers to irrelevant icons breaking up the readability of the prose.Helmboy (talk) 12:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Nine Network, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Misplaced Pages:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Also see WP:BURDEN Bidgee (talk) 01:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The source is the broadcast, just as prod. numbers are sourced from the broadcast copyright slate of WB and Fox shows. They don't issue on-line press releases to cite such changes.Helmboy (talk) 03:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that you revert yourself, since you just breached WP:BURDEN, WP:V and WP:EDITWAR. For all we know, you've created a hoax. Bidgee (talk) 04:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Go watch subtitled shows (with subtitles on) like Ellen, Extra and Partners which all state the accreditation at the start and/or end of the show. It is perfectly valid to not cite for broadcast material when the reference can be found in the broadcast itself and nowhere else. If this wasn't the case, production numbers added to a host of TV show articles are all in violation and should be removed. Just because you obviously do NOT need or use the subtitling to notice this change of who did and now does the subtitling, does not invalidate what I added from my observations. Also stop using the guidelines to control article contributions.Helmboy (talk) 04:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I have decided I will remove the edit and also end any future edits to any article I update due to the dictating nature of editors who like to rigidly control certain articles by threatening other editors. Misplaced Pages can say good by to yet another fed up editor. So much for this being a repository of knowledge.Helmboy (talk) 05:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Such edits clearly would have a source online, even about TV programs. Remember '"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material" (WP:BURDEN). Now that I'm not using a mobile device, I done a quick search and found this, even so it isn't up to me to find reliable sources. Bidgee (talk) 06:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Your edits (DAYS concerned)

I keep reverting your edits on Days of our Lives because they are not written grammatically correct in English form, and I am simply trying to make it flow better. And you continue adding things will ill-sourcing or no sourcing at all. And you need sources to prove your points. The episode count you provided is not in the source you provided, so until it is, it will continue to be removed. Misplaced Pages runs on reliable sourcing, which you should be correcting citing, no just adding in bare reference links. You seem to think I'm doing this to be mean, I'm not. I'm doing this to follow the polices we're all meant to follow. That is all. livelikemusic 03:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

That is entirely your opinion on the grammar, as is the flow. And episode counts are generally not sourced as they are incremented counts. If they had to be sourced then the US count in the info box would be invalid.Helmboy (talk) 04:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

It's more my trying to have it corrected, as when spoken out it does not sound grammatically correct, but it's also for the validity of Misplaced Pages to make it a proper encyclopediac source of information. And everything should be generally, for the most part, sourced. I just don't want you thinking I'm trying to egg you on or anything. Just trying to explain why I'm editing the way I am since I'm being accused of being a *grammar police* who you're trying to *appease*. And the U.S. airdate count is correct, according to NBC's website count of episodes. livelikemusic 04:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The NBC site shows the daily production number that Sony uses, it is technically not the count. Also since it is a production number it does not need referencing due to such numbers generally only being referenced internally by studios or on end of credit production slates.Helmboy (talk) 04:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Your Nine News edit

Hello, I'm Melbourne3163. I noticed that you made a change to the Nine News article on 9 February 2014, but you didn't provide a source of any kind. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Cheers. Melbourne3163 (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

These are wildfeeds and I provided a link to the Satbeams site.Helmboy (talk) 21:26, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Feedback needed on using special characters

Hello. Thank you for using VisualEditor! Having editors use it is the best way for the Wikimedia Foundation to develop it into the best tool it can be.

While we always welcome general feedback (please report any issues in Bugzilla in the "VisualEditor" product or drop your feedback on the central feedback page on MediaWiki.org), the developers are especially interested right now in feedback on the special character inserter. This new tool is used for inserting special characters (including symbols like ₥, IPA pronunciation symbols, mathematics symbols, and characters with diacritics). It is intended to help people whose computers do not have good character inserters. For example, many Mac users prefer to use the extensive "Special Characters..." tool present at the bottom of the Edit menu in all applications or to learn the keyboard shortcuts for characters like ñ and ü.

The current version of the special characters tool in VisualEditor is very simple and very basic. It will be getting a lot of work in the coming weeks and months. It does not contain very many character sets at this time. (The specific character sets can be customized at each Misplaced Pages, so that each project could have a local version with the characters it wants.) But the developers want your ideas at this early stage about ways that the overall concept could be improved. I would appreciate your input on this question, so please try out the character inserter and tell me what changes to the design would (or would not!) best work for you.

Issues you might consider:

• How often do you normally use Misplaced Pages's character inserters?
• Which character sets are useful to you? Should it include all 18 of the character sets provided in the wikitext editor's newer toolbar at the English Misplaced Pages, the 10 present in the older editor toolbar, or some other combination of character sets?
• How many special characters would you like to see at one time?
  • Should there be a "priority" or "favorites" section for the 10 or 12 characters that most editors need most often? Is it okay if you need an extra click to go beyond the limited priority set?
  • How should the sections be split up? Should they be nested? Ordered?
  • How should the sections be navigated? Should there be a drop-down? A nested menu?
• The wikitext editor has never included many symbols and characters, like ℗ and ♀. Do you find that you need these missing characters? If the character inserter in VisualEditor includes hundreds or thousands of special characters, will it be overwhelming? How will you find the character you want? What should be done for users without enough space to display more than a few dozen characters?
• Should the character inserter be statically available until dismissed? Should it hover near the mouse? Should it go away on every selection or 10 seconds after a selection with no subsequent ones?
• Some people believe that the toolbar already has too many options—how would you simplify it?

The developers are open to any thoughts on how the special character inserter can best be developed, even if this requires significant changes. Please leave your views on the central feedback page, or, if you'd prefer, you can contact me directly on my talk page. It would be really helpful if you can tell me how frequently you need to use special characters in your typical editing and what languages or other special characters are important to you.

Thank you again for your work with VisualEditor and for any feedback you can provide. I really do appreciate it.

P.S. You might be interested in the current ideas about improving citations, too. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

num_seasons

Please note, the instructions for {{Infobox television}} say that num_seasons or num_series is for "the number of seasons (US) or series (UK) produced", not the number of seasons or series that have been completed, so this edit was wrong, as were several other edits that you have made stating that the field is for completed seasons only. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Given production dates are unavailable and shows are only months or weeks or days out from the broadcast date. Going by the broadcast date is better for constancy and in line with the num_episodes field. Please be more logical and practical about this. Don't just go verbatim by what was written.Helmboy (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Once a single episode has aired within a season that is how many seasons have aired at that time. Which means that it is already in line with the num_episodes field. If a show is cancelled after airing a single episode of a season that season still existed. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 23:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

(ec)You are editing articles inconsistently with the way that the infobox has been used for many years. Once a season begins airing the field is updated because this confirms that the season has been produced (only a single episode is necessary for a season). This is currently under discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Television#Infobox question as a result of your recent edits, which have been reverted by multiple editors. If you have a problem with this, please take it up at WT:TV, as another editor has suggested. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

Your recent editing history at Days of Our Lives shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. AussieLegend (✉) 23:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Entertainment Tonight. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thank you. We do not feature technical or satellite information about any programming because that information is solely esoteric and applies to network master controls only; anyone reading this article has no interest in closed captioning and screen formatting specifications. Please do not place this information in this or The Insider articles again, and work within the existing Manual of Style. Thank you. Nate • (chatter) 08:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Your interpretation of WP:MOS#Technical language has nothing to do with the Distribution section being too technical and more to do with your personal opinion of what details YOU think are a valid for inclusion in a TV show article. There is absolutely no reason why details on how a show is put together and the method of distribution wouldn't be relative to an article or to a reader. Please STOP using guidelines as a very flimsy justification for your personal views. Also please stop owning articles you edit. I am getting very close to confining my edits to sites that have editors that are more co-operative and less directorial than the small number of wikipedia editors who choose to dominant articles.helmboy 00:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The problem with the section is that not many people care about this information at all because they don't have large send-and-receive satellite facilities to watch a program; the majority depend on television stations and their television provider to give them that those programs so they don't even have to think about how it comes from the satellite. No cable channel article has this information. No network program in any country carries this complicated information. The purpose of articles should be to explain, in clear English, what a subject is. I'm going by what is usually seen in a program article. If someone wants to read the technical specs of a show, there are places to read that information off-site.

There is also no ownership of the article taking place at all; I'm only following our guidelines, and a picture of color bars with words upon it adds no further understanding to the article, and under our fair use guidelines, if we can't clearly explain the purpose of an image and why it should go there, then we shouldn't include it. You have been warned multiple times to follow the guidelines in several cases; they're there for a reason, to keep articles under a certain way to read to both being easy to understand and written well. Nate • (chatter) 06:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of if a reader has a dish and receiver to obtain the FTA feed is NOT a reason for lack of inclusion. Any information of note relating to the subject of the article is perfectly valid. You are still showing your OWN personal preference on what you think is noteworthy for inclusion in an article, just like a number of other editors here. As for the slate image, it is used as a verification reference that the feed exists and valid under fair use just as any title sequence screen grab is. Also most distribution details are NOT on other sites due to the small amount of internet users that have capable satellite setups, also all distributors do not make these details publicly available. helmboy 21:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

And STOP your bully tactics to enforce your point-of-view. helmboy 21:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)