User talk:Frederick/Archive 1
Contents
Welcome!
Hello, Frederick/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikisimpsons!
Thank you for your edits to the Mike's son article and taking an interest in our wiki. If you have any troubles, feel free to ask questions on any experienced editors' talk page. Also, you could look at a help page.
Here are a few pages to help out new editors such as yourself:
- Help pages, your first stop if you need any help
- Editing help, in case you have questions on how to properly edit articles
- Policy pages - Failure to abide by these will result in consequences.
Please sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your name and the date. Signing your comments is important, as it lets other editors know who has posted which comments.
Again, welcome! ☆The Solar Dragon (Talk - Contribs.)☆ 10:21, 25 November 2011 (EST)
Great work
Hey, I would just like to thank you for all your great work recently. Keep this up and you'll be in with a chance to win the Golden Homer this month. Thanks, The Solar Dragon 16:48, 4 December 2011 (EST)
- Really, no kidding? This is really great, thank you Solar Dragon. --Freddie (Talk) 5:31, 5 December 2011 (PST)
Question ... ?
Did you talk to anybody before you started cutting guest star articles to the bare bones? I'm just trying to understand what you're up to. If the idea is to keep the focus of the articles on the show, that's fine, and that's an ideal I've been guilty of straying from myself. I freely admit to having a tendency toward long-windedness at the keyboard. :-) All the same, a couple of extra facts about the guest are fine ... just enough to answer the question of "Why was it such a big deal that the person appeared on the show?" Anyway, good to have you here; I'm just curious about where you're coming from in making the changes. As for where I'm coming from, please have a look at the Project Guest Stars and Project Self Voicers pages. -- Mythigator 20:48, 10 December 2011 (EST)
- You have a huge point and I guess I kind of agree, but only kind of. You see it isn't related to The Simpsons if you're telling what else they have been in. Do you see where I am going with this? --Freddie (Talk) 17:54, 10 December 2011 (PST)
- Perfectly. But that doesn't mean you have to strike out EVERYTHING that's non-Simpsons-related. Another thing to consider is that while there is certainly some fat to be trimmed, a fair amount of work goes into putting those facts together. Unilaterally deleting a bunch of material with no explanation gives the impression of a lack of respect for whoever did the work in the first place. However, now that I know what you're doing and what you're trying to accomplish, it's cool. The only criticism I'll offer is that you could be a little less heavy-handed with the red pen. For example, in the Johnny Carson article, I added back in the fact that he's best known for having hosted The Tonight Show. If someone who doesn't know anything at all about him is wondering "Who the hell is Johnny Carson?" then that little fact, plus appropriate links, gets the crucial information across while maintaining a Simpsons focus. I guess I'm just saying "keep a balance". For an example, I'll do a trim job on the article for Buzz Aldrin, which I wrote, BTW. That should demonstrate what I'm talking about. -- Mythigator 01:15, 11 December 2011 (EST)
- Totally see where you are going with this and I agree. --Freddie (Talk) 10 December 2011, 10:51 (PST)
- Excellent! Thanks for being willing to dialogue about this. Just as a heads-up to you, I am also going to add back in one fact about Theodore Roosevelt. The other trimming you did there was just fine, though. Happy editing and talk to you later, and if you have any questions at all, feel free to drop me a line on my talk page. Peace out (and go 'Nucks!). -- Mythigator 02:22, 11 December 2011 (EST)
- Sweet as! Thanks and I'll try and add back things that they are known for, if you haven't all ready done so :P. --Freddie (Talk) 0:15, 11 December 2011 (PST)
- Don't worry about trying to track them all down systematically; it's fine to just make the changes as you happen to notice them. In the meantime, now that we know what "happy medium" we're aiming for, I'll re-visit some of the other guest star articles I wrote and do some trimming. Have fun and talk to you later! -- Mythigator 09:22, 12 December 2011 (EST)
- Sweet as! Thanks and I'll try and add back things that they are known for, if you haven't all ready done so :P. --Freddie (Talk) 0:15, 11 December 2011 (PST)
- Excellent! Thanks for being willing to dialogue about this. Just as a heads-up to you, I am also going to add back in one fact about Theodore Roosevelt. The other trimming you did there was just fine, though. Happy editing and talk to you later, and if you have any questions at all, feel free to drop me a line on my talk page. Peace out (and go 'Nucks!). -- Mythigator 02:22, 11 December 2011 (EST)
- Totally see where you are going with this and I agree. --Freddie (Talk) 10 December 2011, 10:51 (PST)
- Perfectly. But that doesn't mean you have to strike out EVERYTHING that's non-Simpsons-related. Another thing to consider is that while there is certainly some fat to be trimmed, a fair amount of work goes into putting those facts together. Unilaterally deleting a bunch of material with no explanation gives the impression of a lack of respect for whoever did the work in the first place. However, now that I know what you're doing and what you're trying to accomplish, it's cool. The only criticism I'll offer is that you could be a little less heavy-handed with the red pen. For example, in the Johnny Carson article, I added back in the fact that he's best known for having hosted The Tonight Show. If someone who doesn't know anything at all about him is wondering "Who the hell is Johnny Carson?" then that little fact, plus appropriate links, gets the crucial information across while maintaining a Simpsons focus. I guess I'm just saying "keep a balance". For an example, I'll do a trim job on the article for Buzz Aldrin, which I wrote, BTW. That should demonstrate what I'm talking about. -- Mythigator 01:15, 11 December 2011 (EST)
IRC
Come join me! We'll have a chat ;) --Will (talk) 03:07, 12 December 2011 (EST)
- Sorry, due to technical difficulties I can't so, so sorry. --Freddie (Talk) 0:19, 12 December 2011 (PST)
Capitalism
I apologize if you've just seen someone else doing it, but making an edit solely to change the capitalism of {{W|Example}} is a bad edit, and may be reverted due to this. --Will (talk) 18:59, 13 December 2011 (EST)
- Sorry Will, I get really confused with "w" and "W". --Freddie (Talk) 16:04, 13 December 2011 (PST)
- I don't think capitalism is the word you were looking for Will, and although it's not encouraged I don't think it would ever be reverted.--Cook879 08:00, 16 December 2011 (EST)
- It doesn't matter! They're both the same template after all. It doesn't matter which way it is. Solar Dragon (Talk • Contribs.) 08:19, 16 December 2011 (EST)
- I don't think capitalism is the word you were looking for Will, and although it's not encouraged I don't think it would ever be reverted.--Cook879 08:00, 16 December 2011 (EST)
Template:Ch and [[X (character)|X]]
Hi, In these circumstances, The Ch template should be used as it shortens the code on the page. Less code is generally better for loading times etc. Could you not make edits changing the template to the less efficient version? Thanks, The Solar Dragon 04:53, 18 December 2011 (EST)
- Sorry 'bout that, forgot to close Nowiki tags. Also, Interwiki links, such as [[sv:13 Euclid Street]] allow links in the sidebar to pages of other languages on our wiki network. So, could you leave these in too please. Thanks, The Solar Dragon 04:53, 18 December 2011 (EST)
- And please leave {{DEFAULTSORT:}}s in place as well. These are needed for pages starting with "The", "A", "An" and punctuation to put them in the right places in categories. Thanks.--Cook879 07:32, 18 December 2011 (EST)
Paul Anka
Nice work on the Paul Anka article. That one's been in need of some tightening up for a long time, so it's good to see it finally sorted out. -- Mythigator 08:57, 22 December 2011 (EST)
