User talk:Ebyabe

Leads
Please ensure that any articles you create adhere to Tardis:Leads, which stipulates that every page must have an introductory lead providing context for the article. For example, for your page Autumn, I simply added:

Autumn was a season.

Now, that's obviously a nascent form, but if you don't have the necessary information, just writing something that basic will allow you to meet the criteria. I know I did message you before about leads, so it might seem like you can't win at this point, but don't now go back to making those errors: copying from Wikipedia, or using non-DWU information. I hope you can find a compromise.-- 01:22, October 11, 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It did seem I couldn't win for losing on the leads, so I wasn't adding any. It's mostly an issue with the generic/disambiguation type pages I'm creating. I thought about adding something like you did, but that seemed insufficient. If that's all it takes, I can do that. I just don't want the pages deleted after all the work I put into them, just for the lack of a few words. Anyway, thanks for the constructive suggestions, muchly appreciated. Back to the grind! :)  Ebyabe   (talk)  01:44, October 11, 2014 (UTC)

Redlinks
Hi! I realize you want to clean up the wanted pages, but you should just be focusing on the real world and in-universe pages. As for talk pages, forum pages, templates, etc that have redlinks, without knowing the purpose of the redlinks, you should not delete them. In addition, it is against policy for non-admins to change the content other users' posts to talk pages and forum pages, so it's best not to give permission in this case that could lead other users to thinking it's ok to do so.

For now, just focus on story info and cast/crew/production pages, and maybe start fully fleshing out some of the stubs you've created. I know your original question was for Skittles the Hog, but I've been meaning to address this with you for a little while now, and being an expert at procrastinating, I'm just now getting around to it ;) Thanks! Shambala108 ☎  02:47, November 16, 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah...
 * I only just saw Shambala's post above this. However, I must say I disagree with them. Removing a redlink to a page that will never be created is, in my opinion, allowable. If it will help you continue your work on the wanted pages, I'm all for it. I do see Shambala's problem with it though. I removed all the links to that user blog you mentioned and they were all on the Howling, so that wasn't really a difficult one.


 * Contrastingly, BFBS was linked on archived forum pages. Some would have these preserved for posterity in all their glory. I removed the links - other wouldn't have; it's more important to allow for progress now that to exhibit the past, in my opinion. BFBS was also linked to by a user's personal subpages. Now these you shouldn't change without asking. Oh, and BFBS is only linked to twice now, so it should fall down the wanted list.


 * I'm sure either Shambala or another user will have a viewpoint so you should wait before acting on this, but if your just removing a redlink from an archived forum page or a Howling page, it seems fine to me. The obvious solution to this would be to just ignore those red links on the wanted page, but if they're bugging you, or detracting from your ability to keep creating, I still stand by my decision. It's a minor change for great benefits.-- 09:57, November 16, 2014 (UTC)


 * As User:CzechOut points out in Thread:165734, you should not correct odd-numbered namespaces, which includes the talk and forum pages.


 * There are things on old forum, sandbox and talk pages that are meant to be kept, and only the user who put them there knows if they're important or not. User:SmallerOnTheOutside, for example, has a ton of things on his sandbox that he's working on. The infobox template pages have redlinks that are there for illustrative purposes and will never be created but are necessary for illustrating how to use the infobox.


 * In my opinion, it's far more important for non-admins to fully flesh out all the stubs that have been created than to get rid of a few once- or twice-redlinked pages, most of which are never seen by the average user. Shambala108 ☎  15:25, November 16, 2014 (UTC)

We're talking about pages such as a user blog and an old prefixe, pages that are linked upwards of five times, meaning they show up on wanted pages. Obviously, if they were only linked once or twice they wouldn't make it to the head of the list. I doubt you'll find any editors that object to having a link removed from their post. It's certainly a sacrifice I'm willing to make to have Ebyabe continue doing his thing. To take his case as an example, he has provided many great additions for this wiki in recent weeks and says he's being held back by redlinks - insignificant redlinks on archived pages. It seems rather ridiculous to say they should be kept for the sake of preservation.-- 15:37, November 16, 2014 (UTC)


 * Hey Skittles. I'm not really being 'held back', per se. It just seems silly to have non-pages that will never be created on the 'WantedPages' list. I mean, it's called 'WantedPages' for a reason, right? I don't see it as a big deal to delink such pages. BTW, why do links on Howling/Forums pages show as 'WantedPages'. I'd say that only mainspace links should count (articles and article talk pages and Tardis maintenance pages).


 * I don't just work on 'WantedPages', but I can be a bit OCD about them. However, I have done other things. Ebyabe   (talk)  18:45, November 16, 2014 (UTC)

Decades
You're welcome! Thanks for your thanks. You're doing a great job too. ;-) HarveyWallbanger ☎  14:57, November 25, 2014 (UTC)

Marking pages for deletion
Hi! Thanks for letting us know about the nearly empty page that needed to be deleted. In the future, it's better to mark such pages with a tag instead of blanking content. It's easier for admins to find deletion candidates if they have a tag, and in most cases, deleting the content is not appropriate, as the admin will need to know what was on the page. Thanks! Shambala108 ☎  15:55, December 5, 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks back! I couldn't remember how to do that here. I'm used to Wikipedia, where it's both easier and harder. Cheers! :)   Ebyabe   (talk)  01:06, December 7, 2014 (UTC)

New category
Hi! I need to stop you before you do too much more work. Your new category, Locations visited by Bernice Summerfield, is similar to one that is under discussion at Thread:169815. Until this forum debate is settled, there should be no categories created that are similar, as is the case with yours. For now, the category will be deleted. Thanks. Shambala108 ☎  03:14, February 15, 2015 (UTC)