User talk:UDScott/2005

Hi. Welcome to English Wikiquote. Enjoy!-- ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 14:53, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * For a quick overview of what Wikiquote is, read Wikiquote.
 * Also see What Wikiquote is not for common activities that Wikiquote does not support.
 * To ask for help or to talk with another editor, visit our Village pump.
 * To browse Wikiquote, take a look at our browsing start page.
 * Before creating new articles, consult our guide. You may practice how to edit a page at Sandbox.
 * Please remember to use edit summaries when editing pages.
 * When posting to a discussion, please sign with a date by writing four tildes (~&#126;) and saving.
 * Be bold.

Film contributions
UDScott, I want to thank you for your substantial contributions to a variety of film articles in such a short time. Your enthusiasm is just what we need here at Wikiquote to build up our cinematic quote database.

At the risk of some discouragement of this enthusiasm, I'd like to point out some variance in your edits from current common Wikiquote cinematic practices, and ask your opinions about these and your approaches. (We have established practices, but they can and do change, based on community input.)


 * First, I see you're using the half-width HR tag to divide quote segments, but also using the bullet form to set them off. The bulleted format approach has some problems, most notably that it requires HTML BReak tags to break the individual lines, making the quote text very hard for editors to read, let alone correct or expand upon. This was why we switched from bullet to indented format for multi-line dialog segments. The bullet form is still commonly accepted for single-line quotes, and is preferred outside films and TV shows, but when it's used, the divider should be left out, as the bullet marks the segment start.


 * Second, the half-width HTML markup is only a necessary evil, used to provide visual separation between dialog blocks without using excessive blank lines and without using the standard wiki horizontal divider ( ), which gets confused with the Monobook-style heading dividers. In general, we try not to use HTML markup except when essential. It's probably better to separate the start of a quote section from an introductory paragraph either with two blank lines, or by adding a section heading like " ==Quotes== ". (We don't really have a well-established practice for this yet, but yet another HR variation is probably not a good idea.)


 * Third, it is now common practice to omit quotation marks in dialog segments, since there is no ambiguity about the quoted material. (In fact, I believe we'll be revisiting the whole idea of using quotation marks at all, given the move from plain-text to wiki-formatted conventions, but that's for the future.)

If you haven't already, you might want to review the preferred "Dialogue" format under Templates. If you feel there are good reasons for changing any of these practices, you might bring them up under Wikiquote talk:Templates, where there is an ongoing discussion of such issues. Or you can just respond here or on my talk page for a more direct conversation. (Several other frequent film editors monitor my page, so they'll likely jump in, too.)

Thank you again for your work, and I hope we'll continue to benefit from your contributions. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:23, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

JeffQ: Thanks for the pointers -- I admit I'm very much an amateur at this and I was just copying some things I had seen in other entries. I've changed a couple of my entries to match the preferred style (I'll work on getting back to some of the others I did before). Thanks again. ~ UDScott

Hi! Excellent work on Million Dollar Baby. Thanks for the (likely) saving of the article, and the quotes I dug up about it with it. I have made some small formatting modifications to the article, which you can look over if you want. I hope you are enjoying contributing here at wikiquote as much as I am enjoying reading over the quotes you add! 15:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi. First let me preface by saying if there's ever a conflict of directions between Jeff and me, his directions superceed &mdash; he is much more experienced than I in WikiFormatting. However, I fear in this case you have misunderstood Jeff. Jeff admonished against using an hr (of whatever size) to seperate the bullets and to set off the quotes from the introduction (intro in WikiquoteSlang). Indeed, that is something which is not standard. Bullets should have no whitespace between them -- browsers format lists well enough. Dialogue segments should have half-width hr between them, but not before the first or after the last. If you check the template Jeff pointed to above, you would see Jeff's instructions clarified and illustrated. Thanks again for the hard work and the attention to details! ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 16:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Ahh! I understand now -- I think I've finally got it. Thank you. UDScott 18:59, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * MosheZadka is too kind to me. I have been doing this somewhat longer, but he's really been instrumental in propagating the format compromises I used in a few articles to become a de facto standard.  And our documentation frequently lags behind our actual practices, so sometimes the confusion comes from Wikiquote having to play catch-up. (In fact, when double-checking the reference I gave you, UDScott, I realized I had to update the template to change an outdated wiki horizontal rule (  ) to the relatively new half-width HR, for the reasons I gave above. Don't hesitate to ask questions if other oddities or apparent conflicts come up; such questions often help us fine-tune our practices and documentation. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

List of films: duplicate and non-existent articles
I'm afraid I need to point out another "variance", this one on List of films. That list is divided into Existing and Requested films, in order to present Wikiquote readers with a list of actual articles rather than the mess of red links that we used to have. Because of this organization, which is explained at the top and discussed in detail by following the provided link to Notes, all desired but uncreated articles are listed in the lower section. You will find Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls already there, which is also why we ask people to check the lower list before adding an article.

I apologize for any confusion this may present, but we try to balance the usefulness of the list against the fervent desire of some editors to add every title they can think of without bothering to create any articles. (Some of those red links have been there over half a year.) Based on your earlier edits, I expect you'll be actually doing the work, so it may seem a bit silly to you to add something to the bottom, create the article, then move it to the top. You might consider some advice I gave to another frequent film-article contributor, RPickman, on how to make this a nearly atomic process. (Ignore the mention of subpages; we used to have the existing and requested titles on two different pages, so it was even more complicated then.) I hope that provides a useful alternative. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:23, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * No problem. I've actually been adding films to the list and immediately creating the page. I guess I got distracted on the Ace Ventura one (plus I guess I missed it down below). Sorry about that! Thanks for keeping me honest. UDScott 18:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Superman
Hello. You seemed to have made two pages which are duplicates: Superman and Superman: The Movie. I have made Superman a redirect to Superman: The Movie. This way, further quotes will be added at S:tM, which means if we ever turn Superman into a disambig (animated series, cartoon, etc.), the histories will be better managed. Thanks for your efforts. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 21:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks MosheZadke. I think that I had a change of heart on what to call the movie, since it is known as both. When I settled on "...The Movie" I forgot to remove the first entry. Thanks for cleaning up after me! UDScott 14:17, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * In order to minimize the potential for arguments about what title to use for a film, we typically go with the primary IMDb title, which in this case is Superman. However, there are exceptions. This may be a reasonable one, given the competition for that particular name and MosheZadka's point about a future disambiguation page. In cases of ambiguity, it's a good idea to make some kind of nod to the other common name, as I've just done on List of films, just to forestall such arguments. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:39, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

VfD
Please don't remove a VFD tag from an article, even if you nominated it. Once an article is nominated for deletion, it must stay that way until its vote is closed or a sysop judges it to be speedy-deletable. Even sysops aren't suppose to remove these tags except in very specific situations. And while it is okay to improve an article that is under VfD nomination because of shortcomings, it's a bit radical to take "redirect" action on it before the vote closes. But don't worry; these actions are reversible (and, in fact, have already been reversed), and I'm sure you were only following the standard wiki "be bold" motto. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Renaming articles

 * A question: is there an easy way to rename a page? An example is the recent edits I did on teh page called 'Evans' which is a candidate for deletion. I would like to change the title to the full name of the person (Bergen Evans), but didn't want to merely cut and paste onto a new page, losing the connection to the ongoing vote. Maybe I'm just overlooking something obvious here? Thanks UDScott 13:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Nothing is obvious until one learns it. ☺ Each wiki page has a "Move" tab at the top (or link at the left, if you're using other page-format "skins") that is essentially a rename function. Any registered user (like yourself) can Move a page, unless one already exists with that name. If the page to be moved has a Talk (discussion) page, it is usually moved as well.

Your question raised another one that I don't have an answer to at the moment: should some move/rename an article while it's being voted on for deletion? This also just came up with The Other Eden, which should be titled This Other Eden. I suggest you hold off for the moment while I look up relevant policy info and perhaps ask the other sysops. Thanks. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:32, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmm, can I do it using the list of people? If I change it there, will the connection I mentioned still exist? UDScott 13:25, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

When you move an article, a redirect is automatically created, so that any links to the old page, when clicked on in other pages, will jump to the new title. (There are limitations and complications to this; see w:Help:Renaming (moving) a page for more information.) On the other hand, changing the link in other pages without changing the original article title will only make it a "red link"; i.e., a link to a non-existent article. Fortunately, once you move the article, such red links will automatically become valid. When moving an article, you should always check the "What links here" link on the left of the page to see what links should be changed to point directly to the new title. (Many people forget to do this, however, because the redirect usually makes the old links work.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Concerning moving an article during a VfD, I didn't find anything obvious about policy. I've asked Aphaia's opinion. I suspect she'll recommend moving the article anyway, but I suggest we wait until she comments. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * In en.wikipedia, articles to be VfDed should not be moved or merged. See w:Template:vfd ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 15:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks, MosheZadka! That's exactly the sort of thing I was worried about. Sounds like we should wait until vote closure before acting. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Film quote source

 * Jeff -- I'm sure it got lost in the onslaught of changes that are always appearing, but I left a comment and question for you in the Superman II talk page. Basically, I'm wondering if there is a better source for accurate quotes from films (besides the flawed IMDB). I've found film scripts occasionally that help,but was wondering if you had any alternate sources. Thanks. UDScott 18:00, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about not responding to your Talk:Superman II posting earlier, but I was preoccupied with meatspace matters and then Wikiquote VfD stuff. (If you're used to MosheZadka's lightning-quick replies, he's an unusually energetic editor. Wiki interaction can easily take days, since no one knows when anyone is "listening".)

I hope you don't feel put out by my revisions. Your formatting work was a useful, necessary, and often-overlooked step in creating a robust and accurate article for Wikiquote. It just happened that I've had Superman II on my worklist for several months, and it finally came up in my Netflix queue. When I found you'd created the article and populated it with WQ-formatted quotes, you saved me considerable effort! All I had to do was review the DVD to sort and correct the existing quotes (as well as add a few bits).

As quote sources go, IMDb is perhaps the best of a bad lot, for two reasons: it does have a professional screening committee, however understaffed they may be, and it is arguably the most respected source of film and TV information on the 'Net. Your use of IMDb as a starting point is exactly what others (myself included) have done to add to Wikiquote's database. It provides the raw material that we can then fashion into a properly formatted, organized, and verified Wikiquote article, saving us considerable typing. This is legal because one cannot copyright facts; insofar as the quotes are accurate, they aren't owned by IMDb or any quote website. And I seriously doubt a respected organization like IMDb would ever try to make a copyvio case based on how error-riddled their data is! Even so, correcting quotes prevents even this potential problem. (Standard IANAL disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, so take this info with a grain of salt.)

The web is literally littered with wildly inaccurate quote databases. One way I've used to locate accurate sites is to take an original work and do an exact Google search for a phrase likely to be misquoted. For instance, I just tried searching for Lex Luthor's "oh my fullness as I explained to you before" (including the quotes to make it an exact search; case and punctuation are ignored) to look for a good S2 transcript — many quote databases will miss stuff like "oh my fullness" — and found a Superman II shooting script. Even though these sites themselves probably violate copyright laws, we can use the material from them, which is presumed to be factual, as a basis for creating a quote article. (A note about shooting scripts, though: they're rarely definitive, as actors and directors often change things during shooting. On the other hand, besides serving as a starting point, they can often provide clues to unintelligible dialog.) The basic requirement for this quote-location scheme is a definitive excerpt of the original, best provided by a DVD or uncut telecast recording. And as long as you have that, you might as well do a verification and perhaps a chronological-sort pass. (The former is made much easier if you do the latter, too, or even first; that's one of the great advantages of chrono-sorted quote articles.) If folks don't want to do all this work, what they do contribute will eventually be edited by others; that's the beauty of wiki. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:21, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Article length

 * Jeff -- After completing the addition of quotes to the Season 5:Triangle episode, I wanted to ask a general question (a little late since I already expanded the quotes, but here goes). How much is too much (when it comes to TV shows in particular)? With a show like Buffy, there's so much strong dialogue that I was loathe to eliminate much. But did I add too much? Where should I have stopped? UDScott 18:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi, UDScott. I noticed your question to Jeff, and wanted to point you at an old discussion at the archives. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 18:35, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks MZ. While that was an enjoyable conversation, I'm still not sure the answer to my question -- although it does appear that I may have put too much in my entry for Triangle. I guess I'll need to review what I put in there and maybe cull some parts of it -- or is it ok as is? I, too, am a huge fan of the show and it's hard for me to step outside that and recognize which quotes may be superfluous to the average reader. Hmmm, such a dilemma! UDScott 18:48, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Several of the regulars here (RPickman, Jeff and me at least) are huge fans of Buffy. I doubt what you put in is too much, in any case. However, at least I try to follow Jeff's guidelines of not adding more than 2-4 quotes myself to an episode. We do not have hard and fast guidelines, though I tried to hint at using less than 4.5 minutes of quotes per episode (10% should probably be considered fair use). I'll note that most Buffy fan sites which have quotes have many more than wikiquote, and none of them have been sued AFAIK. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 18:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

You ask many a good question, UDScott. After quickly looking over your additions, I would have to say that it looks like too much to me (not to mention that "Triangle" looked a bit long even before your edits). But there are no hard and fast rules. The problem with TV shows is that they have a huge amount of material to cover. Buffy has about 103 hours of dialog, whereas a typical film has only 2, give or take. In general, it's wise to consider adding only your favorite quotes from any episode, especially since every other editor can be expected to do at least the same. (I have perhaps 4 times the amount of material currently in Buffy recorded for a quote project of my own, but I resist the urge to add too much more of my own favorites.) There are also practical reasons — even with only highlights, Buffy is already the longest Wikiquote article (and has been for the past year or so).

A few specific guidelines:
 * Try not to add more than 2-4 quotes yourself, as MosheZadka mentioned.
 * Try to avoid adding dialog whose humor or pithiness won't be clear to someone who has not watched the show. Such material is better suited for fan sites.
 * Any time you find yourself transcribing an entire scene, consider trimming it down to the best few lines.
 * A context longer than a single line suggests that too much non-quote material is needed to make the quote interesting.
 * It's better to remove a single non-pithy quote line that add a paragraph to demonstrate why it's interesting.
 * Always remember that others may have different opinions on what should or shouldn't be included, so leave "room" for their ideas.
 * Wikiquote will never be the definitive Buffy quote site, or the definitive site for quotes on any single subject, any more than Bartlett's Familiar Quotations could possibly be the definitive book for Shakespeare quotations. Single-subject sites will always have more material. All we should hope for is to provide accurate highlights of the show.

Also, I'm afraid I must counter MosheZadka on the subject of avoiding copyright suits. We follow MediaWiki fair-use policy because it is policy, not just when we think we can't get away with breaking it, as other clearly copyright-violating sites have done thus far.

Finally, at some point, we should probably consider trimming what is already in Buffy. I and other editors have tended to avoid deleting quotes, so as not to put too much of a personal spin on the article, but there are probably many quotes that break the content-based guidelines above and practically beg to be trimmed or deleted. Frankly, I'm a bit surprised we Buffy contributors haven't gotten complaints yet from the rest of the community about this article. We must not let our love of the show outweight our responsibilities to the WQ community. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:27, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Two points:
 * 1. My point about avoiding law suits is not against MediaWiki fair-use policy. "Fair-use" is a vague legal term, and can only be tested in court. That the various media companies did go after transcript sites and didn't go after the quotes sites, which hints at the allowable length.
 * 2. After looking again at Triangle, yes, it could use serious trimming.
 * ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 06:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks guys. I had a feeling -- I will make an attempt to trim the Triangle quotes. And I'll keep both of your thoughts in mind in the future. Thanks again UDScott 12:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Help test run a new feature
Hi! Since you often create film pages, I wonder if you would mind using Help:Starting a new page/draft next time you do. There's a button which is supposed to help set you up with a template in an easy way. Any opinion, positive or negative, will be welcomed on Help talk:Starting a new page, and of course on the vote there. Thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 14:21, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Sure thing -- I'm actually almost finished with a new film page -- I'll use it on my next one later today. Then I'll let you know how it goes. UDScott 14:39, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * MZ: I thought that starting a new page using the shortcut worked very nicely. I'm sure that it would make things much easier for new users. Good job! UDScott 15:59, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Film categories
Hi, UDScott. I noticed you added Category:Films to a bunch of movie articles that already had more specific categories (like Category:Romantic comedy films). We're following Wikipedia's policy of not including articles in both a specific category and a general one that the specific one belongs to. (We do permit articles to have multiple specific categories, like Science fiction books and Science fiction films for The Andromeda Strain, when appropriate.) I'm afraid this is another one of those annoying undocumented practices that we just assume folks have picked up from Wikipedia or other MediaWiki projects. I'll add this to my list of stuff we need to clarify. Sorry about the confusion. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Jeff, OK I'll stop the additions. But I do have a question as to why this is the policy. My reason is that when I was first on the site, and I wanted to look at the list of films, I didn't realize that they would appear on a sub-list, but not on the general list. Thus, I assumed that a given film was not on the site yet. My point is that as a new user, I didn't want to have to figure out what subcategory the film was under. In any case, this is fine -- I'll go with what has been the rule. UDScott 17:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * In fact, by this logic, shouldn't all films have some certain subcategory, and thus the Category:Films really should be empty?? UDScott 17:38, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * You make two excellent points. First, this policy does indeed make it less convenient in some ways to browse movies. (This is one reason why "List of" articles haven't yet been phased out.) There is an ongoing debate at Category flatten on how to provide "flattened" lists of category contents, but I don't believe we have a good answer yet. Second, all films should eventually belong to a subcategory, but like so many things in wikidom, it sometimes takes a bit of time and effort by multiple editors to get any particular film into the appropriate category or categories. This is especially true of genre-defying subjects of any kind, which is why Category:Themes, often used as a catchall category, looks so chaotic. It all follows what I think of as the wiki philosophy: ever-decreasing entropy through the patient work of multitudes. For specific discussions on Wikiquote category policy, if you haven't already done so, you might check out Wikiquote talk:Category schemes. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:56, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

User page
Hi. May I inquire why you did not set up a user page? Usually, a short blurb about yourself and your interests in wikidom, as well as articles you are proud of (and you have many articles to be proud of!) is common. It is not necessary in any way, I am just being curious. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 16:50, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely right! I just wasn't sure what to put there -- I'm working on it now though so I should have something shortly. UDScott 17:44, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Dawn of the Dead
Howdy. I believe you made some substantial contributions to the Dawn of the Dead page (if I'm mistaken - which happens with annoying regularity - disregard rest of this). I've been doing some cleanup on the page. When/if you have time, take a look and clue me in on any complaints/thoughts/whatever you may have. --RPickman 05:41, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn't get back to you regarding your request for me to review the Dawn of the Dead (2004) stuff. I still haven't had a chance to look, but I had done some work before the merge had to occur (I inadvertently created a new page before I really understood how things work here). But, I used primarily IMDB to add quotes and tried to adhere to the format shown in the Film template. I've just returned to work from a vacation, but I'll try to take a look as soon as I can and offer any comments I have. UDScott 19:34, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Film title capitalization
Hi, UDScott. I see you've been busy adding more film articles. Thank you very much for your ongoing work! Of course, you're probably thinking there's an "uh-oh" attached to this compliment, and you're right. I'd like to ask that you be a bit more careful about title capitalization. I just had to move Killer Klowns from Outer Space and Singin' in the Rain, creating unnecessary redirects. (If one types in improperly capitalized article names in the Search box, one will usually either go right to the correct article or at least see it as the first link in a list of possible articles, even without redirects, so it's good to get the article name exactly right when one creates it.) We follow basic English proper-noun capitalization rules for titles (mostly, don't capitalize internal prepositions, articles, or conjunctions) in all but the rarest of circumstances. Another useful guideline is to check the film's IMDb entry, which is almost always the title we use, and usually gets the capitalization right. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:12, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Jeff, no problem. I wasn't sure the convention (I should have looked around more), but that makes perfect sense. I didn't realize the search was sensitive to capitalization. UDScott 19:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * MediaWiki search is sensitive to capitalization, but I believe it uses a procedure that will return the exact article with different capitalization if (A) it fails to find the requested title with exactly the same capitalization and (B) if it finds only 1 version of the case-insensitive character string. (I haven't formally tested this, but that's been my informal observation.) Therefore, it seems useful either to have no capitalization redirects or every likely version. Obviously, the former is preferable. (By the way, I would very much like to have switched to full capitalization, as you used for these two titles. It completely eliminates the challenges of determining parts of speech and even the problem with sentence capitalization that still requires proper-noun caps. I discussed this when I was working on Wikipedia song lists, and extolled the virtues there of fully capitalizing all song titles to avoid endless arguments about k.d. lang styles and whether long prepositions should be capitalized and small verbs not. However, there isn't really any general inclination that I've run into to use this for article titles, let alone a potential for consensus, so I prefer to concentrate on lesser windmills. ☺) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:34, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Condensed TOC for TV shows

 * Jeff, I wasn't sure if you ever got consensus on this, but I wanted to say that I really like your condensed TOC for Buffy the Vampire Slayer (and Blackadder I believe). As I was working on Alias, the TOC was getting a bit cumbersome and I adapted your format (through the first three seasons -- I've still got work to do). I plan to use it for the other series I am working on as well. It takes a little time to set it up, but I think it looks much better than the standard. Are there any plans to adopt this format as the norm for TV series? Thanks. UDScott 19:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Egads, no! I admit I'm rather proud of these custom TOCs (my Mystery Science Theater 3000 one is the most sophisticated — for good and ill — and my Firefly one is my favorite, just ahead of Blackadder). But they add a considerable chunk of data to articles likely to be rather long already. And even though they're designed not to need editing, they're not as wiki-friendly as the automatic TOCs. They also prevent editors from noticing errors in headings, whereas you can easily spot such a problem with the auto TOCs. But they definitely provide a more compact and robust TOC for lengthy and/or complex articles. I see it as one of the necessary (or at least extremely useful) evils for overcoming a deficiency in MediaWiki markup and formatting. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:47, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * TV shows (when they're extremely successful) might have ~150 episodes, and quite often waaaay less. What I consider "new" comic book series (like Spider-Girl) can easily reach 100, and successful ones like The Amazing Spider-Man have reached the 500 mark. This is why I stole Jeff's condensed TOC for some of my favourite comic pages such as Spider-Girl and Runaways. There is an annoynance level in needing to add every single episode heading, as well as not being able to "hide" the TOC (like the automatically manufactured one). I agree with Jeff &mdash; it would've been nice to have mediawiki render some kind of help with constructing the TOC. At the moment, you may notice the TV template page says "use a custom TOC in the following circumstances&quot; :) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 04:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Dawn of the Dead
There's no rush; give the page a look whenever you have time. I'm still a little uncomfortable tampering with material someone else posted (aside from minor format tweaks), so this is pretty much an attempt to make myself feel better. Almost all the material I "trimmed" was posted by me, but I'll be more comfortable if other contributors are aware of my changes. I think I mentioned this in previous message, but in case I didn't: your comments - and even complaints - are welcome. Also, a belated welcome to wikiquote. --RPickman 04:53, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: Minor formatting question
WARNING: EXTREMELY GORY DETAILS AHEAD.

Hi. You might notice that Jeff's comment on the width=50%->width="50%" fix was "make it XHTML compliant" or something to that effect. HTML is a subset of SGML, and there the quote marks in this specific situation are optional. Furthermore, most browsers parse HTML in so-called "tag soup" mode (AKA the designers were monkeys and the browser needs to make some sense anyway). XHTML is a subset of both HTML and XML, a much stricter language. Every valid XHTML page is valid HTML, but not vice-versa. Hopefully, in the future (30th century or so), XHTML will be sent from mediawiki pages to XHTML compliant browsers, which will make the rendering faster and more compatible. Jeff was preparing for this eventuality by making the tag XHTML compliant. To sum up: &lt;hr width="50%"/> is better than &lt;hr width=50%>, but it's no big deal. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:31, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the lightning-fast response Moshe! I'll use the quote marks going forward (and if I need to edit past pages for other reasons I'll make the change as I go). Thanks for the warning at the top too. :-) UDScott 13:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Note also the forward slash, if you do that :) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:49, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see MZ beat me to the punch. I won't bother to add my note from my talk page, except to point out that various folks on Wikipedia (and, I believe, in the MW developer community) seem to be pushing for any HTML markup (and HTML-style attributes within Wiki markup) to be made XHTML-compliant to prepare for this eventuality. (I think MZ's being a bit sardonic about ultimate compliance; I'm sure it'll be done well before the 25th century. &#9786;) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism fighting
Hi, Scott. Thanks for your help in reverting vandalism. Please note that usually the term "spam" is reserved for various "link-spam" schemes, and not for random vandalism. The difference is akin to the difference between burglary and vandalism in the "real world": while both deny the owner the use of his property, the former enriches the burglar. When dealing with vandalism, especially if it's confined to one page and easily revertable, the usual procedure is to add the to the user's talk page, as a mild first warning. A serious repeat vandal, or a spammer (even a one-time spammer!) will usually be blocked. You can always add a note at WQ:VIP in such cases. These traditions are kind of folk-lore here, unfortunately, and as far as I know there's no clear documentation for these things. Thanks again for all the help ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 17:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * No problem -- I usually keep a watch on pages I create or work heavily with. I wasn't aware of what to do, other than reverting the pages back to their latest valid version. By the way, I used the word 'spam' because I thought that the word vandalism was to be reserved for rampant or obscene altering of wikiquote pages, rather than what is the case of Top Gun was mostly harmless changing of a few bits of text. But thanks for the info. I'll be better informed next time. As always, I'm eager to learn the ways of WQ. :-) UDScott 17:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia box
Hi, UDSCott. Thanks for adding the wp box to Stephen Hawking. By convention, addition of the wp box comes with an addition of an "external links" header. I realize it may seem silly to add the whole header just for the wp box, but it does look better that way, and promotes more visual consistency. Thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * No problem. I wasn't sure if you wanted a new section just for that link, but I'll be sure to include it next time. UDScott 14:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Patrick Fitzgerald
Hi, UDScott. Thanks for contributing the Patrick Fitzgerald article. I have reformatted it a bit, if you want to look at my changes. Mostly, I added a stub notice, removed the extra whitespace between the intro and the first header, reformatted the context lines (see Templates/People), put the title of the CNN article in the page, and only link the first instance of the article (that is not documented anywhere, I'm afraid, but it is common practice here I believe). ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 19:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

PS. Re Stub notice: My personal policy (after trying to achieve a consensus met with deafening silence) is to add it to articles which have <= 3 quotes and remove it from articles which have >= 10 quotes, meaning I leave articles with 4-9 quotes as I find them. So far nobody complained, but if you have any comments about this, I believe there is still a discussion about it on WQ:VP. Thanks again. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 19:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * No problem -- thanks for updating it. I knew I wasn't quite using the correct formatting, but I wanted to get the quotes out there pretty quickly (nearly real-time). I would agree with your "unofficial" stub policy. I'll look to expand this one in the coming days. Thanks again! UDScott 19:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Guide to layout rewrite
Hi, UDScott. I wondered if you care to take a look at Guide to layout/Draft, especially at the films section (but your comments on any part of it would be welcome). Thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 20:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Interested in being an admin?
Nice work on the Led Zeppelin page, among many others — you've contributed much good work over the months you have been here. If you have any interest in being an admin I will put your name up on the Requests for adminship page. I usually like to get some sense of whether someone wants it or not. There aren't any actual duties involved beyond that of any other user, but one can revert vandalism a little easier, edit protected pages, and block any vandal that is being a persistent nuisance. ~ Kalki 14:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'd be happy to act as an admin. I've enjoyed working on the site ever since I've found it. I feel that I'm still learning all the nuances of how everything works, but I do feel that I can contribute. Even now, I feel a bit of a sense of ownership and try to keep the pages clean and free of vandalism. I'd be honored.UDScott 15:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I have placed your name on the Requests for adminship page. Please indicate there that you have accepted the nomination. I will have to wait at least a week to allow comments and votes before actually making you an admin. Thanks, for the swift reply. ~ Kalki 15:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations, you are now a "sysop" (administrator). ~ Kalki 08:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Congratulations from me too! ~ MosheZadka (Talk)

Test template
Hi. Great work reverting vandalism! I just wanted to nit-pick a little, if I may, that by convention, when adding the template (or any other talk-page template, really), one should still sign it. The template's goal is to use a well-crafted message, but it is still a specific user (you) that talks to another user. In addition, this lets the user complain to someone specific if, indeed, the template was unfair. I am sorry to be constantly nit-picking at you, I do appreciate the hard work you put into Wikiquote. Thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 18:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * No worries -- I'd much rather do things correctly than get upset at the corrections you've provided me. Believe me I'm not offended at all. I'll add my signature next time. Thanks. UDScott 18:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Welcoming committee
Hi, UDScott. I noticed you spell-fixed User:MosheZadka/WikiProject welcoming committee, and I used my amazing deductive abilities to conclude you read it. Any feedback at all on it would be welcome! ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 21:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

no-intro tag
Hi, UDScott. Thanks for helping check out and tag new pages. Please note, however, that if there's a wikipedia link, the page should not have a no-intro tag: no-intro specifically allows for a wikipedia link in lieu of an intro. The rational is that an intro or a (working, that is, leads to an existing, valid wp page) wp link is enough to know what the subject is: no-intro is for "I don't have any idea what that is, and I don't want to look on google": it was invented to force people to add an introduction to possible vanities and the like, for easier filtering. I consider it quite a harsh tag: it's one step before VfD, when you don't have time to do research to check if it should be VfDed. It also serves as a "trap": the new user will often add an introduction such as "is a student at Foo school and is pretty awesome", at which point VfDing becomes easier. Thanks for your help and contributions ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 22:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Spam
Hi, UDScott! Allow me to congratulate you on (what I believe is?) your first deletion. As usual, I have a few very minor comments: Thanks again for joining the administration team ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 19:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * When speedy deletion, the comment, by convention, starts with "SD: reason". The rationale is that Speedy Deletion cases are very specific, so the admin must specify which criterion this falls under. As a hint, over 95% of the cases are "SD: spam", "SD: patent nonsense" or "SD: no useful content".
 * When deleting spam, it's highly advisable to block the spammer (for somewhere between 3 and 7 days in the case of an anon, or indefinitely if it's a username). If you saw the new article via recent changes, there's a "block" link available to you. If not, the page's history (before you delete it) has a link to the user's talk page, and a user's talk page has a "Block user" link in the toolbox (on the leftmost column). It took me forever to discover all these links, and I'm trying to save you the trouble :)


 * Oh, and I also wanted to ask you a question: I had an idea of creating W/index.php as a redirect to Bad title and protecting it, since it gets significant spam. What do you think? ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 19:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the hints Moshe (your help is always appreciated!) I actually was going to block that particular user, but I had already deleted the page and I didn't see a way to block him after the page was gone. I was able to get to the user's talk page, but I thought it was a little weak to add a test comment. I didn't notice the link you mention on his talk page. Next time, I'll make sure I do things in the right order. Thanks again -- and yes, it was my first delete. I think the redirect is a good idea -- when I looked at the history, it definitely appeared to be a target for abuse. UDScott 19:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * If you ever again need to block users and don't have a block link ready, you can always use Special:Blockip. This and other goodies are available on [], which is in many admin's bookmarks (yeah, I wanted to tell you about it when you made admin, but it naturally slipped my mind). Wikipedia has an organized procedure, with a reading list and everything, but we do things by word of mouth still :) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 19:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks again. That brings a new thought to my mind -- should there be some sort of welcome package for new admins? In other words, some of these helpful hints that you've sent me -- could there be a page for new admins that would act as a quick primer on how and what to do? I know there's information out there, but maybe something that ties it all together would be good (this shortcuts page is a good start). Just thinking about the next new admin to come along. UDScott 20:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You figured me out :) My hidden agenda at dumping all this information on you was, obviously, to cause you to write such a page...But seriously, yes, such a page would be useful. If you want more hints, you could check out the archives of my talk page, which are full of Jeff instructing me when I screwed up badly enough. Collecting those tips would be incredibly useful! Thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 20:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Administrator info
Congratulations on your becoming a sysop! I appreciate your commitment to (and recent practice of) maintenance work in addition to your excellent content development.

I noticed your question to MosheZadka about information for new admins. I guess we don't really have such a page here, but it's a great idea! Meanwhile, one rather substantial source for general wiki admin info is w:Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list. I picked up quite a bit of information from its many links. (In fact, I'm well overdue for further exploration!) Another page you might take a look at is my admin shortcuts page, which is a concentrated set of useful links for doing admin stuff. It has no explanation whatsoever of what anything does; it's just a collection of links, most of which you can find by wandering around the Wikiquote: namespace and examining the links in "Special pages" (in the toolbox, left toolbar on any page). Feel free to copy it to your own user namespace and modify it with whatever gems you find. (Aphaia actually added a link from her user page, which is okay, but I usually prefer that folks not edit my user pages directly.) As always, you can drop any of us "old timers" a question, which we'll frequently respond to by saying "hmm… that's a good question". &#9786; ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Charmed quote removal
Hi, UDScott. Nice work on making the Charmed page look like a real quote page. Please note, however, that your first edit removed a quote from Season 3. I have re-added that quote, with proper attribution and episode number. If you find quotes which you find dubious, it is usually a bad idea to remove them outright -- one thing you can do is put them under "unknown episode/unknown character". Alternatively, you can move them to the talk page. Thanks a lot, and also thanks for adding quotes to the QOTD list (I was beginning to feel like nobody else cares). 20:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah, I wasn't even aware that was a proper quote from the show -- I thought it was just nonsense. Thanks for fixing it. I was just trying to quickly make it a viable page. Also, I'll try to add even more to the QOTD list -- I enjoy finding those, but I hadn't gotten to that page yet. There's still so much to do! :-) UDScott 20:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, don't I feel like a geek for remembering most of Charmed well enough to accurately remember which episode and season this quote was from :) In any case, this is why I recommended moving dubious quotes to talk -- none of us are perfect, some day I might even find a quote from Buffy I don't recognize :) Speaking of stuff to do, I've begun working on the six million dollar version of Jeff's shortcuts page in User:MosheZadka/Useful shortcuts. Additions and comments are welcome! I plan to move it soon to the Wikiquote: namespace. Thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 20:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

RFA
Hi, UDScott. Congrats for your promotion and welcome to Wikiquote sysop team. Also I appreciate you on your reply to me on RfA. I know your massive contributions ;-) and think it is the best way for all of us that each of us pursue our own goals - following policies and ideals of the project - but you might be aware, as you mentioned there, some issues like vandalism are needed to be reviewed by as many eyes as possible, and from my experiences deletion issues are one of such issues on our project. Since you are one of main contributors and familiar to many types of contents, you could be a help to solve a tangled discussion on WQ:VFD. ;-) --Aphaia 06:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

People formatting
Hi, UDScott! Impressive job on the people pages. Please note that a person page should have the person's name bolded, not bold italic, unlike movie and TV pages. This isn't arbitrary: the theory is that the page's subject is bolded, and that names of fictional works are italicised.

So, for example, instead of: Martin Van Buren (December 5, 1782 – July 24, 1862), nicknamed Old Kinderhook,

It is better to use: Martin Van Buren (December 5, 1782 – July 24, 1862), nicknamed Old Kinderhook,

(I'm sorry if it seems redundant: I can never tell if my explanations are clear enough).

Thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 21:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi! You've been contributing even more, even better pages, I see :) Your contributions inspired me to write what experience I have in writing people pages in a format which will hopefully help others have an easier time in writing people pages. You, I'm afraid, have advanced beyond the stage it can help you, but perhaps you feel like commenting on it to help me make it better. The page is in []. Thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 16:11, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey Scott i need help editing my pages...

Vote signing
Hi, UDScott. You forgot to sign your vote on WQ:VFD. Could I also request that when you vote several times, please use the section edit links, and make several edits? This makes history much more readable: UDScott voted several times vs. UDScott /* SydLexia.com */ vote delete UDScott /* Foobar */ vote keep This makes it easier to find out forged and mis-signed votes. Thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk)

Webcomics standards
Hi. I saw your cleanup comment on Talk:El Goonish Shive. First of all, thanks -- I know, from experience, that it is often annoying to have to formulate one's dissatistfaction from a page's formatting, and I also know how useful it is, so I appreciate you making the effort.

You'll notice that technically all comic book pages (including webcomics) should get a big, giant, huuuuuge "cleanup" tag since they are all classified as "literary works", and violate the literary work GtL section and template in the worst way possible. You may wonder why a careful editor like me has neglected any mention of comics in GtL, when I am the primary contributor on Spider-Girl, Runaways and Dinosaur Comics and a major contributor on Sluggy Freelance and The Order of the Stick. The reason is that I tried to make the GtL formulate current consensus and all my attempts to build consensus have mostly met with silence, occsasionally the weak positive remark, and the only indication that this style is acceptable is that it hasn't been reverted -- which might mean I am merely persistent :)

I would love an established guideline on comics and webcomics, and in fact I've already written such in my head a dozen times (roughly: taking out the "dialogue formatting" section out of the TV section and giving it its own section, noting that the enormous number of issues may mean an ad-hoc means of organization is often needed, giving as an example the Year/Issue technique in classical comic books, the Series/Issue technique in classical comic books, the Chapter, the Year/Month and the "Groups of ten" technique in webcomics, encouraging to link the first time a webcomic is referenced like in Sluggy/OOTS/CAD, etc.) The reason I did not write one was because there were hardly any comments on the GtL as it was, and I did not think there would be more for such a (relatively) esoteric topic.

In conclusion: you are right, the page is a mess, but there are sadly no widely established guidelines on how to format comics pages so that they will not be a mess :)

~ MosheZadka (Talk) 20:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

28 Days Later
I notice you've added a cleanup tag to this article. What exactly needs to be corrected or cleaned up? - RPickman 02:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

RHPS
Hi! As always, it's fun to work with you on pages. I'm not sure if you're a big RHPS fan, but this is one of the few movies where it is extremely easy to find a version of the script online, because the AP (Audience Participation) people need it -- in fact, just googling for "RHPS ap script" is usually enough :) I've corrected and chronosorted those quotations you added (from imdb, I presume?) from memory (I'm too proud to use a script -- I know the movie pretty much by heart), but if you add more quotations, please verify them based on a script. There were several mistakes which just hit me in the eye ("a powerful monster" for "a powerful master" by someone who obviously did not even think about what he was transcribing, "the madison" for "how to madison" which sounds a lot less stupid), but there are possibly more :)

Thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 21:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Dinosaur Comics
First, let me say "hahaha!" I love hooking people on web comics, and DC is certainly one of the best to be hooked on. I also highly recommend reading the wikipedia article (disclaimers: I wrote parts of it). ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 04:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Dinosaur Comics
Hi, UDScott. Did you see my note at Talk:Dinosaur Comics? Thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 19:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

''Moshe - I have to thank you again for getting me into DC. As I arrived home today, I received in the mail my first DC book (Dinosaur Comics:huge eyes, beaks, intelligence, and ambition)! I can't seem to get ENOUGH? :-) ~ UDScott 21:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)''


 * Excellent! And you're already learning the language, I see :) It is pretty good, and part of my insidious scheme to draw you into comics formatting debates... ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 22:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The Filth
In what way does The Filth require cleaining up? Comments in the discussion section would be nice. --Mister Six 14:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi, UDScott. Just wanted to point you at the comment I left on Mr. Six's talk page regarding comic book formatting. Thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 15:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Removing quotations
Hi, UDScott. I saw User talk:64.12.116.71 and wondered if you're aware of remove. You are welcome to improve it, and to use it if you think it works. Thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 15:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks Moshe! -- I will use it next time. UDScott 16:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

More unsolicited blocking advice
The trick is "block and revert" in that order...otherwise, you run into the problems which you just ran into :) It's also smarter for other reasons: the most important thing to do is blocking: anyone can revert, but only sysops can block, and blocking limits damage immediately. Thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 19:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Moshe. I'll keep that in mind. In this case, I wasn't sure he needed blocking until it kept continuing. The sum of his actions led to the blocking, but each one on its own wasn't all that bad and I was planning to progressively get harsher, using the designation, with increasing severity. But then there got to be too much of his spamming actions. UDScott 19:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, then block from whichever edit of his you decide to block him from :) There's always a specific edit which is the straw that breaks the admin's back, and if you block him from the RC of this edit before reverting (just as a std. procedure) you will enjoy a much less unblock-myself life :) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 15:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

WSI
The Lewy quote in Wikiquote is from his book. I put in the page numbers. Personally, I believe those few paragraphs represent a feeble attempt to smear the WSI event. The author is a well known war hawk, jingoist and military apologist that was trying to muddy the waters in any way possible. He cites reports that don't exist; casts vague accusations without naming names (unlike the rest of his book) and claims memory failure when questioned about it later. Definitely POV... but quotes are quotes, regardless of their slant. Hence I removed the tag. 165.247.222.97 20:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with it now, but the way it originally read, that section was not cited as being written by anyone. It appeared that you (or someone else) had written their own opinions into the page. Now it more properly shows that the text came from somewhere. Thanks for cleaning it up. ~ UDScott 20:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Voting
Hi. Your recent edit to VFD struck out my vote, not yours :( Would you mind reverting it and striking out yours? Thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 14:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Diff
Hi, UDScott. I don't know if you noticed the last thing on WQ:AN, but the last anon you reverted tried just such a trick: if you look at the bottom, you'll see a spam link. I've blocked this anon, but please look over the diffs for that tell-tale link at the end which distinguishes spam (immediate blocking cause) from vandalism (which should go through some test/test2/etc. escalation before being a blocking cause). Thanks for your attention ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 17:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Lots of attributed quotations
Hi, UDScott. I noticed you often add a large bunch of attributed quotations. If you are using various online quotation compediums (I assume Portman is not in a PD version of Bartlett's), it is better not to do it. These collections are often horrendous with regards to accuracy, have many quotations which have no relation to reality whatsoever and so on. Thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 17:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Closing VfDs
Hi, UDScott. Next week I'm getting ready for a performance, and it's my new week in a new job, so I probably will be even less active here than I have recently. There are several votes due to close next week, I was wondering if you minded closing them, and if you felt confident enough to close them? Closing votes is a fairly simple process: If you have questions, let me know! Thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Change the "Closes" line to "Closed", add "Result: delete/keep/move/etc.", and in parenthesis, give the vote tally (with editorials: "5 votes were by users with no edit history and were not counted", etc.) and sign that line.
 * If the decision was to keep, remove VfD tag, add tag to talk page.
 * If the decision was to delete, check the "What links here" if you need to remove any links, or keep them red (that will often depend on the reason for the deletion).
 * Delete the page.

Every pleasure has a price, but..
it seems My page isn't welcome. Feel free to delete it. I get frustrated with paged that are deleted just because they're "not notable". They don't compromise the intgerity of the site nor do they cause disruption as far as access is concerned (except maybe it takes up too much space). Then again, these sites are accessed by millions of people who don't know the quote. Getting a few local people to support keeping the page isn't worth all the trouble. -- Eddie

Georgie Henley UD needs more quotes maybe you could help out? --169.244.143.115 15:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)