User talk:TenTonParasol
 | An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sockpuppet of Itzjustdrama (talk · contribs · logs). Please refer to editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence. This policy subsection may be helpful. Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth |
Please use this link to create the category page
(The page will be pre-loaded. All you need to do is save it)
| Please leave a . |
 | |
| Wikipedia ads | file info – show another – #289 |
Characters in ASOIAF: House summary descriptions
I disagree that your house descriptions belonged in the article about characters. Though the characters are arranged by house and allegiance, the article is about the characters. I would suggest adding links to the pages about houses rather than inserting a summary. As far as asking what happened to "your" summaries, did you check the edit history for the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkendr (talk • contribs) 14:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- I apologize about my OWN problems. I always have a problem with that. And what I meant about the House summaries was the summary about characters in the house, rather than a summary about the actual house itself.
- About Osha's placement, I believe it makes more sense for her to be categorized under House Stark. Yes, she is a wildling. But she is more strongly associated with the Starks that with the other Free Folk. In the appendices, she is listed under "The King in the North" (A Clash of Kings, A Storm of Swords) and under House Stark (A Feast for Crows, A Dance with Dragons). The way the page is organized, it groups the characters based on associations. They was I designed the groupings placed the characters where they are most strongly associated.
- As for Willas and Garlan, I know they have roles in the novels. I read them. However, I feel they accomplished very little. Willas is never seen and his biggest role is a marriage plan between him and Sansa that fell through. Garlan wore Renly's army, scared Stannis' troops, said some nice words to Tyrion, and then planned to take the Shield Islands back. Not every character needs to be listed. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 21:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- First, sorry if I came off as disagreeable. I went back later and saw your WP:OWN issue comes from pride and not arrogance, which is rare. We can split hairs about Osha all day, but you're right, whatever's listed in canon (in this case the GRRM books) should prevail. The houses are the sum of the people in them, and a lot of what I saw had to do with facts such as words, etc. Perhaps merging them out to an umbrella article about houses, and linking them back using Main Article would not be a good compromise? Dkendr (talk) 00:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- I really didn't know what to do with the words and what-not. I think the a lot of the history (i.e. how the Tyrells became lords of the Reach) could be cut unless its important to understanding the house, such as where the Targaryens came from. I agree that the mottos and heraldry doesn't add too much. However, the words and heraldry, especially heraldry, is important to identifying the families. The problem with the article about the houses in general may not stand on its own notability-wise, so I'm not sure if that would work. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 01:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- First, sorry if I came off as disagreeable. I went back later and saw your WP:OWN issue comes from pride and not arrogance, which is rare. We can split hairs about Osha all day, but you're right, whatever's listed in canon (in this case the GRRM books) should prevail. The houses are the sum of the people in them, and a lot of what I saw had to do with facts such as words, etc. Perhaps merging them out to an umbrella article about houses, and linking them back using Main Article would not be a good compromise? Dkendr (talk) 00:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Characters in A Song of Ice and Fire ref conversion
Hi. I don't want to interrupt in your cleanup efforts :-), but I see you're removing the {{sfn}} ref style in favor of {{listref}} without the character POV. Is that wise? I understand that {{listref}} reduces the article size, but I think having the character's name chapter makes it much easier for finding the information when you have a different book version, plus it makes it easier to write with an out-of-universe perspective later on (According to Jon Snow, ... but Samwell Tarly states that ...). – sgeureka t•c 16:18, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- True. I did like naming the POV character, but I thought it would be best to sacrifice that rather than have a million references. But now that you mention it... I put together two alternates here at my subpage using the same template. Rather than list page numbers, Jorah lists the chapter by POV (Eddard III, Daenerys X) and Davos lists it by chapter number (Ch. 16, Ch. 72). I, personally, prefer to list it by POV, but my concern is that the reference might become too distracting. Although shorter, and possibly less distracting, listing the chapters by number makes the chapter more difficult to locate, as you said. In the end, I may go with the Jorah example. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 23:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- I can't make up mind for how best to proceed. I've listed the pros and cons of the variations below. I'd just be sad to find the holy grail of ref'ing later on and have to dig up all the page/chapter/POV info again. As far as my sourcing of World of A Song of Ice and Fire goes, I'll stick to {{sfn}} (without the chapter number) and decide what to do later on. I've also tried different ref groups, see User:Sgeureka/Sandbox#Other_sandboxy_things. Maybe the book refs can be split from the refs for true real-world information, so that different column widths can be used in {{Reflist}} (not available in Internet Explorer). – sgeureka t•c 15:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, to reduce the number of refs, one could also group pages together. So for instance, instead of {{sfn|''A Game of Thrones''|loc=Eddard I, p. 42}} and {{sfn|''A Game of Thrones''|loc=Eddard I, p. 43}}, it could be {{sfn|''A Game of Thrones''|loc=Eddard I, p. 42-43}}. At least for the World article, the infos from the book are often tied across few pages. – sgeureka t•c 16:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
| Ref style | Example | Pro | Con |
|---|---|---|---|
| {{sfn}} | Blablabla[1] blablabla.
|
no text polution Easier to verify for all book editions |
Many references (considerable Ref section polution) |
| {{listref}} | Blablabla[AGOT]: 93 blablabla. | only little text polution no Ref section polution |
Harder to verify for different book editions (no page or chapter "translation") |
| {{listref}} | Blablabla[ADWD]: Ch. 29 blablabla. | only little text polution no Ref section polution |
Verification issue: is prologue Ch. 0 or Ch. 1? |
| {{listref}} | Blablabla[ADWD]: Theon I blablabla. | no Ref section polution | considerable text polution Verification issue (rare): is "Theon I" the first or seventh Theon chapter in ADWD? |
| {{listref}} | Blablabla[ACOK]: Chapter 12: Daenerys I, p.43 blablabla. | no Ref section polution Easier to verify for all book editions |
huge text polution, even if reduced by one info |
- I've noticed that some articles have huge amounts of references. Pope Pius XII has 270. So reducing references isn't exactly necessary. But then I feel that having that many references is ridiculous for a character list. In the subpage example I split the real world refs and book refs apart. I don't know if the two ref lists should be separated by heading or not. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 21:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- Your current subpage example convinces me to separate the real world refs from the book refs in exactly that way in "my" World article - it simply looks incredibly "clean". As for the headings: WP:REFGROUP uses different headings for each, and that's also what I've most often seen across Wikipedia. However, I haven't seen any reviewer responses in WP:Featured article candidates for splitting into real-world / book refs. Later on (not now), I'll take a deeper look at FACs or ask the FAC reviewers directly about that, so as to spare me/us from ill-advised work. – sgeureka t•c 08:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- Alright. In the meantime I'll separate the refs. If it turns out to be ill-advised, it doesn't seem that difficult to convert back. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 15:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- Your current subpage example convinces me to separate the real world refs from the book refs in exactly that way in "my" World article - it simply looks incredibly "clean". As for the headings: WP:REFGROUP uses different headings for each, and that's also what I've most often seen across Wikipedia. However, I haven't seen any reviewer responses in WP:Featured article candidates for splitting into real-world / book refs. Later on (not now), I'll take a deeper look at FACs or ask the FAC reviewers directly about that, so as to spare me/us from ill-advised work. – sgeureka t•c 08:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- I've noticed that some articles have huge amounts of references. Pope Pius XII has 270. So reducing references isn't exactly necessary. But then I feel that having that many references is ridiculous for a character list. In the subpage example I split the real world refs and book refs apart. I don't know if the two ref lists should be separated by heading or not. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 21:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
WikiCup 2012 June newsletter
Apologies for the lateness of this letter; our usual bot wasn't working. We are now entering round 4, our semi-finals, and have our final 16. A score of 243 was required to reach this round; significantly more than 2011's 76 points, and only a little behind 2010's 250 points. By comparison, last year, 150 points in round 4 secured a place in the final; in 2010, 430 were needed. Commiserations to Pool A's 
igordebraga (submissions), who scored 242 points, missing out on a place in the round by a whisker. However, congratulations to Pool B's 
Grapple X (submissions), whose television articles have brought him another round victory. Pool A's 
Cwmhiraeth (submissions) came second overall, with an impressive list of biological did you knows, good articles and featured articles. Third overall was Pool D's 
Muboshgu (submissions), with a long list of contibutions, mostly relating to baseball. Of course, with the points resetting every round, the playing field has been levelled. The most successful Pool was Pool D, which saw seven into the final round. Pool B saw four, C saw three and Pool A saw only the two round leaders.
A quick note about other competitions taking place on Wikipedia which may be of interest. There are 13 days remaining in the June-July GAN backlog elimination drive, but it is not too late to take part. August will also see the return of The Core Contest- a one month long competition first run in 2007. While the WikiCup awards points for audited content on any subject, The Core Contest about is raw article improvement, focussing heavily on the most important articles on Wikipedia. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 11:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
WikiCup 2012 July newsletter
We're approaching the beginning of 2012's final round. Pool A sees Cwmhiraeth (submissions) as the leader, with 300 points being awarded for the featured article Bivalvia, and Pool B sees Grapple X (submissions) in the lead, with 10 good articles, and over 35 articles eligible for good topic points. Pool A sees Muboshgu (submissions) in second place with a number of articles relating to baseball, while Pool B's 
Ruby2010 (submissions) follows Grapple X, with a variety of contributions including the high-scoring, high-importance featured article on the 2010 film Pride & Prejudice. Ruby2010, like Grapple X, also claimed a number of good topic points; despite this, not a single point has been claimed for featured topics in the contest so far. The same is true for featured portals.
Currently, the eighth-place competitor (and so the lowest scorer who would reach the final round right now) has scored 332, more than double the 150 needed to reach the final round last year. In 2010, however, 430 was the lowest qualifying score. In this competition, we have generally seen scores closer to those in 2010 than those in 2011. Let's see what kind of benchmark we can set for future competitions! As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 22:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your welcome!
Thank you so much for your message! I appreciated your input earlier and did my best on contributing to the page. Thank you so much for welcoming me-it was very kind of you! Bookbugtink —Preceding undated comment added 00:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)