User talk:GreyElfGT
Star Trek episodes
[edit]Thank you for your improvements. I should also warn you about something that might be annoying later. I noticed you added some reviews[1][2] and these are good quality reviewers that have been featured in many other episode articles. I think this a good thing but I should warn you that in the past some editors were quite aggressivestrict about sources, and deleted such good faith work. I would note in particular that TrekToday was part of TrekNation and good enough quality that people didn't tend to argue about it. There were occasional arguments against Jammer's Reviews but he was syndicated by UGO at the time and was generally considered good quality, and his reviews have been accepted by the people who reviewed Featured articles on multiple occasions. So my warning is that some editors might try to challenge and delete these reviews so it is always good to know the strong arguments to revert and keep them. Keith DeCandido from Tor.com (recently changed to Reactormag.com) is also a good source of reviews. (The AV Club regularly reviewed Star Trek Voyager episodes too.) Other reviewers not from mainstream publications have less strong arguments for inclusion. (I don't add lower quality sources but if they have already been included in an episode article I am in no hurry to delete unless I have other better sources with which to replace them.)
One reviewer I very much appreciated was them0vieblog.com but irrespective of the quality of his reviews and attention to detail editors rejected using him as a reference. His reviews are worth looking at if for example you plan to improve Voyager episode articles, and although you cannot reference him directly you read his detailed reviews and then try to find and reference the same sources he mentions in his articles.
For a while certain people kept nominating low quality Star Trek articles for deletion (sometimes succeeding, Rogue_Planet_(Star_Trek:_Enterprise) was deleted because people claimed no sources were available and I had to write a whole article with many sources before they would restore it). The Star Trek Enterprise episode articles were in even worse condition than most of the Voyager episode articles, and I spent quite a lot of time trying to bring the worst of them up in quality, so that they were no longer easier targets for deletion. It was a quantity not quality effort on my part, as you've probably already noticed. I still poke the articles occasionally.
Umm, yeah, anyway. If you plan on trying to improve the production sections of articles you might want to look through copies of any Star Trek magazines you can find in the Internet Archive https://archive.org/details/magazine_rack and the books in their digital library section might also be helpful, you only need to create a free account and register and then you can access all kinds of books that might be useful like The Star trek encyclopedia
Thanks for reading. Best of luck with your edits. -- 109.79.160.15 (talk) 21:42, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Feel free...
[edit]If you want to go through the normal WP:AFC process that's fine, or if you just want to ping me when you are ready for the new Festival pages to move to mainspace. I *wish* the articles that I generally see on WP:AFC were the quality of what you create. And as the bot generated message above says, you can create directly in mainspace now, however with articles that complex, I recommend creating them in Draftspace (or Userspace) and then doing a move (*not* a copy and paste, but rather an article move). Let me know if you have any questions! Again, welcome! Naraht (talk) 13:18, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Naraht ThankQ for your feedback...and the "I *wish*" compliment. I know I can post to mainspace without AfC, but for a TV Series that's 65 years old, I purposefully *did* want a second or third eye looking it over. When other editors join in to make changes, I learn a thing or two each time I edit. Through the "diff" watchlist links, or "compare revisions" in History for instance, I noticed you moved the Talk header template below the Banner shell & WikiProjects... I was under the impression that Talk goes at the top, but now I see that it might be better at the bottom. Thoughts on that? if you please? I also wondered at the space removal between the "|Aux4 = <ref name=...." Is there a particular reason why it's better not to have a space between an "=" and the reference? Another point, I didn't just want to go through the AfC process, but was also hoping for an Assessment Rating (Start, C, B, etc.). This tells me if I'm improving as an editor. Hope that helps, and thanks again for the approval of the article. ~<}:^> GreyElfGT (talk) 22:04, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
- I only used the AFCH Approval tool, so I'm not sure why it does a lot of things. On the subject of tools, I'll run it through AutoWikiBrowser and see if that rearranges things. And for the spacing on the Aux4, I just don't know. And I'll look at rating it.Naraht (talk) 10:57, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
- I ran it through AWB and the only changes it wanted to make to the article is to replace {{clr}} with {{clear}} which is sort of expected, it will take templates that are redirects and replace them with where the actual template. Note this is *not* an indication that {{clear}} should be used when writing an article. I tend to use {{-}} which is another redirect to the same template. I also wouldn't go through and edit any other article to do this, this is a perfect example of what Bots should do and humans shouldn't. If you want for info on AutoWikiBrowser, let me know. (WP:AWB). I hate doing ratings, but frankly, Seasons 1, 3, 4, & 5 are at the same level as season 2, so I'm moving them all to C class. Someone on Wikiproject tv might be better and/or give suggestions.
- @Naraht OK, well that answers that. I'm focused more on fixing pages that bug me, than reviewing others' AfCs, so I'm not familiar with *any* of the tools used. When I ran across them, Seasons 1-4 were all in their relative infancy, as you can see here, with non-standard Episode Tables indicated by {{Convert to Episode table}} which is why I started improving them in the first place. So a "C" for what they are now, is a good, and I think appropriate, improvement from the "Stub" I would've given them, if *I* had assessed them. Lastly, there was no extant "List of..." page, so I created that as well. Obviously, it only needs a "List" assessment, so I didn't bother with AfC for it. ThanQ, ~<}:^> GreyElfGT (talk) 11:54, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
- Frankly, adding the other seasons counts as fixing to me. :) Everyone contributes in their own way, and doing ratings is fortunately how some other people contribute. I *think* there is a way to request rating checks, but I'm not sure. I've been editing since 2006, so I've picked up some of the tools by osmosis. I don't do *that* much in AFCs and am much happier doing approvals than rejections. Let me know when you want another set of eyes on S6. I've added the draft to my watchlist.Naraht (talk) 12:07, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Naraht There _is_ a way to request Reassessment, other than simply Blanking the "|class=" Banner shell param, and I knew this, but haven't actually tried it yet, so perhaps I should... I created 4 Season articles for the original 1980s Equalizer show as well, and even gained a "B" for Season 2, YAY! But the others remain Unassessed, so maybe I'll try the request route. The language @ WP:Content assessment states: "To have an independent editor review an article, post a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia/Assessment#Assessment requests."
- Season 6 of Festival is ready for approval now, and thanks for volunteering. I do actually feel confident about assessing others' pages, as List, Stub, Start, or C, but _not_ B or higher (I need to better understand the criteria for upgrading), and I don't think I'd _ever_ rate my own pages...just doesn't feel right to grade you're own work, you know? I'd rather have an Objective 3rd party review. Hope that helps. ~<}:^> GreyElfGT (talk) 02:27, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Naraht Seasons 7-9 are also now ready for approval, Yay! Glad to be done, so I can get back to watching Counterstrike and complete its plot/episode list. GreyElfGT (talk) 13:58, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
- Frankly, adding the other seasons counts as fixing to me. :) Everyone contributes in their own way, and doing ratings is fortunately how some other people contribute. I *think* there is a way to request rating checks, but I'm not sure. I've been editing since 2006, so I've picked up some of the tools by osmosis. I don't do *that* much in AFCs and am much happier doing approvals than rejections. Let me know when you want another set of eyes on S6. I've added the draft to my watchlist.Naraht (talk) 12:07, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Naraht OK, well that answers that. I'm focused more on fixing pages that bug me, than reviewing others' AfCs, so I'm not familiar with *any* of the tools used. When I ran across them, Seasons 1-4 were all in their relative infancy, as you can see here, with non-standard Episode Tables indicated by {{Convert to Episode table}} which is why I started improving them in the first place. So a "C" for what they are now, is a good, and I think appropriate, improvement from the "Stub" I would've given them, if *I* had assessed them. Lastly, there was no extant "List of..." page, so I created that as well. Obviously, it only needs a "List" assessment, so I didn't bother with AfC for it. ThanQ, ~<}:^> GreyElfGT (talk) 11:54, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
- I ran it through AWB and the only changes it wanted to make to the article is to replace {{clr}} with {{clear}} which is sort of expected, it will take templates that are redirects and replace them with where the actual template. Note this is *not* an indication that {{clear}} should be used when writing an article. I tend to use {{-}} which is another redirect to the same template. I also wouldn't go through and edit any other article to do this, this is a perfect example of what Bots should do and humans shouldn't. If you want for info on AutoWikiBrowser, let me know. (WP:AWB). I hate doing ratings, but frankly, Seasons 1, 3, 4, & 5 are at the same level as season 2, so I'm moving them all to C class. Someone on Wikiproject tv might be better and/or give suggestions.
- I only used the AFCH Approval tool, so I'm not sure why it does a lot of things. On the subject of tools, I'll run it through AutoWikiBrowser and see if that rearranges things. And for the spacing on the Aux4, I just don't know. And I'll look at rating it.Naraht (talk) 10:57, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Festival (Canadian season 6) has been accepted
[edit]
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thanks again, and happy editing!
Naraht (talk) 02:37, 12 August 2025 (UTC)Your submission at Articles for creation: Festival (Canadian season 7) has been accepted
[edit]Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thanks again, and happy editing!
Naraht (talk) 02:37, 12 August 2025 (UTC)Your submission at Articles for creation: Festival (Canadian season 8) has been accepted
[edit]Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thanks again, and happy editing!
Naraht (talk) 02:38, 12 August 2025 (UTC)Your submission at Articles for creation: Festival (Canadian season 9) has been accepted
[edit]Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thanks again, and happy editing!
Naraht (talk) 02:38, 12 August 2025 (UTC)