User talk:Spanish lullaby

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!

Zzyzx11 | Talk 23:09, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Jack Shephard 2 Madonna song articles 3 Orphaned fair use image (Image:Angellogo.PNG) 4 Grammy Nominations 2007 5 WikiProject Soap Operas recruitment 6 Soap character pages 7 Passsions since DirecTV 8 Charity 9 WikiProject Germany Invitation 10 Speedy deletion of Samuel Bennett 11 Minor Passions characters 12 Soap infoboxes 13 Your edits to Madonna (entertainer) are undone 14 Passions photos 15 Hello there 16 Orphaned non-free media (Image:Justin Hartley as Fox in 2003.jpeg) 17 Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald Crane 18 Your talk page 19 A friendly reminder

[edit] Jack Shephard

Shephard does have an 'H'. See the discussion at Talk:Characters of Lost [1]. K1Bond007 23:05, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Madonna song articles

There is a precedent on Wikipedia that songs that weren't released as singles or are not notable in some other way should not have separate articles written about them. Please see Wikipedia:Notability (songs). Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 01:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Angellogo.PNG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Angellogo.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 15:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grammy Nominations 2007

I understand your support and adoration for the bands you have prematurely declared as winner. However, the results have yet to be provided. Until this happens, please do not edit the page, other than to correct false information. Thank you. Human historian 03:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Yahoo! News Alerts sent me this partial list of Grammy winners earlier this evening, and the pages for both Grammy Award for Best Dance Recording and Grammy Award for Best Electronic/Dance Album show that "SexyBack" and Confessions on a Dance Floor won, as I attempted to show on the Nominees for Grammy Awards of 2007 page. If my sources were all premature, then I apologize. It was not my intention to provide misinformation, but to update a page that I thought was outdated. - Charity 03:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand. However, in cases of live televised events, wikipedia does not allow information that was been release by the Associated Press or any other source that isn't from the award committee, iteself. Mainly because their sources are sometimes false. It's an odd rule, but it is rule. Thank you, however, for your intent to update the page. And when they say winner, feel free to post it. Human historian 03:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It turns out that the winners are on the Grammy website. So there's a good source, if you wish to contribute to the article. I didn't realize that and I apologize. Human historian 04:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Soap Operas recruitment

WikiProject Soap Operas Message

The WikiProject Soap Operas Recruitment Drive WikiProject Soap Operas is coming out of inactivity, and we are looking for editors like you with an interest in soap operas to join us! The Project was created to guide the structure of soap opera articles and centralize the effort to improve them. We intend to set format and content guidelines for these articles and ultimately raise the standard of excellence in this area. Please consider participating in the Project. Thanks in advance! This announcement is brought to you by TAnthony

[edit] Soap character pages

Regarding your recent edits to the Sami Brady page. It was decided that all relationships except those of force would be in the infoboxes and that forced sex/rape/assault, things like that, would be left at the bottom in a list. Please do not remove any more lists if the only thing there is "other relationships". Thank you. IrishLass0128 20:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Passsions since DirecTV

Hi, I was wondering why you deleted the entire section of plot developments on DirecTV on the Passions article? -- Dougie WII (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The entire section was poorly written and unnecessary. Stuff like that should be incorporated into the character articles instead of being included into the main article, or else the entire article will become a giant plot summary. The brief synoposes of the storylines given at the beginning of the article are all that's really necessary. — Charity (talk) 20:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Charity

Charity

Could you email me please? PMA (talk) 12:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Germany Invitation

Hello, Charity McKay! I'd like to call your attention to the WikiProject Germany and the German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board. I hope their links, sub-projects and discussions are interesting and even helpful to you. If not, I hope that new ones will be. Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany | finger on pulse Wikipedia:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board | finger on pulse

--Zeitgespenst (talk) 14:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Samuel Bennett

A tag has been placed on Samuel Bennett requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Zenlax ^{T C S} 21:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Minor Passions characters

Hey, thanks for your awesome merge, I was dreading the task. — TAnthony^Talk 00:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I wanted to let you know that you forgot to move most of the images from the individual articles to the Minor characters page; I've done it, though. Also, I've restored the categories to the redirected articles; this is acceptable for WP standards for unique entries, and I find it helpful to keep the characters listed in the character category (redirects show up in italics). Thanks. — TAnthony^Talk 21:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks about the images; I realized somewhere along the line that I'd forgotten them and again forgot later to add them once I was done. I had no idea about the redirect thing, either, so my apologies for that. — Charity (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It's fine on both counts; obviously, I'm glad that you did all the work on the merge, and the redirect category is probably a personal preference thing more than anything. Thanks again. — TAnthony^Talk 02:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I renamed "Bennett family" to "Bennett and Standish families" and remerged Prudence (including her image it took me weeks to find) back into that article. Hopefully those changes will be acceptable to all of us. -- Dougie WII (talk) 21:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Soap infoboxes

Many of us have spent hours upon hours fixing the infoboxes from Character to Soap Character and that includes adding all the relations which were formerly in a list at the bottom and making them consistent. With soaps relationships are never cut and dry and in this world names are rarely gender specific. Then there are characters with two fathers so a step and father notation are appropriate. As for brothers and sisters, the infobox indicates all the relations and who they are related through. Your changes did a disruption to the Ethan Winthrop infobox. They don't clutter it, they define it. The infoboxes replace the lists that used to be at the bottom so more information is required/necessary in the boxes. KellyAna (talk) 05:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to tell me about the long hours spent trying to improve soap character pages; I, too, have spent many long hours merging minor character pages, fixing infoboxes, and improving the grammatical quality of articles. I understand your position, and I apologize if I have caused some sort of massive disruption, but when I check the sample soap character infobox at Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas#Templates, only parents and other relatives are given parenthetical explanations. Perhaps a decision was made somewhere else, and the sample infobox was never updated, but, in my opinion, if a reader wants to know how Ethan and Jessica are siblings, they can simply compare the two characters' articles and see that they share the same father; to add (half-sister, via Sam) is superfluous. — Spanish lullaby (talk) 05:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll send TAnthony a note but for as long as I've been here we've included the parenthetical denotation of relations. We don't force readers to tromp through other articles to see relations when we can put it in any infobox available with a simple notation. No reference document that I know of forces that thought process. KellyAna (talk) 05:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I just looked at the "example" and there were a few errors. I've fixed it based on little things over the last few months. This should straighten it out. KellyAna (talk) 05:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

KellyAna, I disagree with most of your notations and seem to share Spanish lullaby's feelings about this. However, I understand that we just have conflicting personal preferences, and for now I think we should just do it article-by-article based on the preferences of the editors who monitor them.

My basic argument is just to keep the infoboxes as uncluttered as possible; every bit of extra detail about the characters listed doesn't have to be noted if it is of limited importance in context and can be found by simply following a link. If Ethan and Jessica are listed as Joe's siblings, we don't need to write "brother" and "sister" except to perhaps note special circumstances like "step-brother" or "half-sister." I don't see the necessity in "explaining" all of the connections either, like "Niece via Sally" because anyone who actually wonders how Tina is Michael's niece can peek at Tina's article. I feel the same way about the maternal/paternal designations, or naming the other parent of every child listed for a character. This isn't essential info that has to be available in the infobox. Also, "dated" and "affair" seem redundant and unimportant when characters are already listed under "Romances," and I think dates are important for marriages and romances.

But again, I won't mess with yours if you don't mess with mine; hopefully you and Spanish lullaby can compromise on whatever article(s) brought this issue up, but we've never really set an "official" way of doing it and I'm hesitant to. — TAnthony^Talk 06:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I never ment to step on anyone's toes; I simply looked at the sample infobox and was under the impression that its style was to be used in all infoboxes. I would like to suggest, however, that Sarah, Jane, and Jonathan be wikilinked — they each have their own section at Children of Passions, which is where Ethan Lopez-Fitzgerald Crane redirects. — Spanish lullaby (talk) 14:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No apologies are needed, I see this as a good thing; obviously KellyAna and I never realized we had conflicting ideas about this. Any kind of discussion is good if it makes WP better, and I'm sure some of KellyAna'a arguments will sway me on this as mine may her. She makes a good point that there's no need to drive readers around to other articles when information can easily be included in the infobox, but I now personally feel like the actual use/value of stuff like "half-sister via Sally" and maternal/paternal designations is outweighed by clutter it creates. Complicated situations can even be explained in a footnote rather than spelled out right ion the box.

KellyAna, the parenthetical notations have indeed been in use forever, but they pre-date the new infobox, which obviously includes relationship categories now. They are still useful in many cases, but I still feel like it's unnecessary to put "father" and "mother" when these characters are listed under "Parents." Still, looking at Ethan Winthrop, though I may have done it differently, I think most of your notes are fine with me because of his complicated relations with the Bennetts and Cranes. Of course, even if I totally disagreed I'd leave it alone, I'm obsessed with One Life to Live, LOL. — TAnthony^Talk 16:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to Madonna (entertainer) are undone

Please stop adding sections called biography when all its subsections are large. It is just an unnecessary division in the Contents table. Vikrant 11:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. I looked through the talk page and its archives and saw nothing against hierarchical structure. — Spanish lullaby (talk) 04:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Passions photos

Me and Doug are coordinating to try to make the PASSIONS page look uniform, and not have many different types of photos. "In the scene" screencaps are what we are going for the characters, and I chose ones, mainly from NBC.com's recap pictures, that worked for the characters. I've also been adding pictures to the old characters, and the different actors who play them. Alexisfan07 27 February 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 22:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

If I may comment: actual screencaps are preferred over promotional photos under fair use, so "replacements" like the one done in Fancy Crane are technically better, even though some of the images may not be as "picture perfect" (facial expressions, etc.) as the promo ones. Just about all the Passions pics were actually deleted a few months ago because they were all promotional photos. — TAnthony^Talk 23:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, okay, my mistake. I wasn't aware of that — I was thinking that "promotional photo" meant "use to promote" and was generally picking those over screencaps. Oh, copyright laws. — Spanish lullaby (talk) 23:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I changed the Gwen one back, because I chose that one specifically to match Natalie Zea's picture of her, is that ok? Also, how old is the Rebecca one? Also, I'm looking for a better Esme one. :) --Alexisfa07 28 February 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 20:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, sorry, I didn't even notice that. I was just mostly looking for pictures where facial expressions were more neutral (NBC has a habit of capping people mid-rant). The Rebecca one is from May 10, so it's nearly a year old. The expression is still slightly odd, but the cap is more clear and the shot is a bit closer to her face.

The only other semi-decent cap that I've been able to find of Esme alone is from December 31, but she's making weird hand gestures. Also, is there a reason that you didn't like the new Fancy cap that I uploaded? I'm trying to figure out exactly what you and Doug are looking for in caps. — Spanish lullaby (talk) 22:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't really like that Esme pic either, I'll look through my archives for a better one over the next few days. -- Dougie WII (talk) 16:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hello there

Nice and interesting user page, really;-) But why did you change your name? (Please, email me if you wish) --Kochas (talk) 23:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Justin Hartley as Fox in 2003.jpeg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Justin Hartley as Fox in 2003.jpeg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. 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 that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (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 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" 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. BJBot (talk) 20:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald Crane

I put in a request for move to try to settle this issue, I agree with you on the naming, please add something here if you can Wikipedia:Requested moves. -- Dougie WII (talk) 15:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Stupid question — do I make my argument at Wikipedia:Requested moves or at Talk:Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald? — Spanish lullaby (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a stupid question, this is the first time I've done this myself and am not sure myself -- I think Talk:Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald#Requested move -- Dougie WII (talk) 17:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The title is Move discussion Dougie had no business changing the title. He also is violating policy by asking for others to back his argument up. KellyAna (talk) 17:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not violating any policy by notifying Spanish lullaby about a discussion I started that she had previously made clear that she agrees with. -- Dougie WII (talk) 08:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Note that show credits have been changed to Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald Crane. An arbitration request has been filed here Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald -- Dougie WII (talk) 03:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Spanish lullaby, it's not likely ArbCom will deal with the issue. Many other methods will be required before ArbCom will touch this issue. KellyAna (talk) 03:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Moot point. It's been rejected. Not surprisingly. KellyAna (talk) 03:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, ArbCom seems slightly extreme. At any rate, while I disagree that Theresa's common name is necessarily Lopez-Fitzgerald and not Lopez-Fitzgerald Crane, I ultimately don't think that leaving the page at Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald will hinder the article as long as we acknowledge that her current legal name is Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald Crane in the opening paragraph and the rest of the article. Besides, I have a feeling that a lot of people are entirely too lazy to add "Crane" to the end of Theresa's name when they search for her. — Spanish lullaby (talk) 04:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your talk page

Hi, I don't think you'll mind, but I've removed the entire Carly Corinthos discussion from your talk page, per Elonka's suggestion that I clean up any of my inflammatory comments. I feel that discussion is over, and it makes both myself and KellyAna look bad. — TAnthony^Talk 02:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, no problem. Anything to help end the drama, LOL. — Spanish lullaby (talk) 03:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A friendly reminder

		Edit summary reminder
		Hello. I noticed that your edit to Jack McCoy did not include an edit summary. Please remember to use one for every edit, even minor ones. You can enable the wiki software to prompt you for one before making an edit by setting your user preferences (under Editing) to "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary". There is also a tool you can check to see your current usage of edit summaries. Thanks, -MBK004 05:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)