User talk:Oknazevad

New comments, questions and concerns go on the bottom of this page. Please use the "New section" tab above if you have a new topic! If you post here I will respond here; other interested parties may want to follow the conversation, and it's rude to force them to jump back and forth. Similarly, if I post to your talk page, please respond there. Don't bother with talkback templates, I watchlist all pages as needed.

How to start a discussion about multiple articles in one place...

OK, so, I need some help here (I'm still a fairly new & fresh editor here)...

I'd like to have a discussion about TV network ID concerning the articles for NBC, CBS, & American Broadcasting Company in one place, and involving you & user Wcquidditch (since it's the two of you that I'm having issues with concerning how those 3 TV networks should be IDed in the opening section for their respective articles). I'm not sure if Wikipedia has a policy about discussing multiple articles in one place, and I'd rather not deal with the hassle of having three three discussions (1 for NBC, 1 for CBS, & 1 for American Broadcasting Company) about network ID going on at the same time.

So, I'd really appreciate any help you can offer here. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 02:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WT:TV is your best bet. I objected to your edits because ABC should match the article title, and NBC is factually incorrect; the sources you link to were from before the NBCUniversal merger, when the layers of corporate holding companies were different than now. But the network itself still has the full name "National Broadcasting Company". oknazevad (talk) 02:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, what do you think about Wcquidditch claiming that the article for CBS should ID the network in the opening section as "CBS Broadcasting, Inc.", since they claim that is the network's "corporate name" (even though I've never seen an article for a TV network used the corporate name as an identifier in the opening section) & that the network hasn't used the full "Columbia Broadcasting System" branding in 50 years' time? ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 02:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he's right about that one. That is actually CBS's current actual name.

Each network is different. CBS completely abandoned the spelled-out version decades ago. NBC has not. ABC may have, but there's disambiguation considerations with that article (every proposal to move the article from the current title has not gained consensus, as there's other networks in the world that are also called "ABC", most notably the Australian Broadcasting Company). Trying to set up each exactly the same is the wrong thing to do. oknazevad (talk) 03:48, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But, should the opening section of a TV network's article ID the network by its "corporate name"?

I mean, the article for The CW IDs it in the opening section as "The CW Television Network", then "the CW", and finally, just "CW" (despite that first reference not being its corporate name, which is "The CW Network, LLC"), while the article for Trinity Broadcasting Network in the opening section waits until the network's third reference (after the full name & TBN abbreviation) to mention its "corporate name" as "Trinity Broadcasting of Texas, Inc.".

So, is Wcquidditch in the right about how CBS should be IDed in the opening section of its article? ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 05:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Typically the full legal name of the company should be in the lead, so CBS's lead is correct. The CW article may need to be changed, but open a discussion on the talk page instead of just making a change, please. NBC is still correct as-is. oknazevad (talk) 15:19, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, once again, I'd like some help...

As far as starting a discussion on the talk page for The CW about what network ID should be in the opening section of the article for the network, should an RfC be used? Or, just start a normal discussion?

And, just a forewarning: I've no clue what to suggest about a replacement network ID/branding for "The CW Television Network", so I probably wouldn't even suggest a replacement. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 21:16, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just start a normal talk page discussion. Doesn't need to be an RFC at this point. But also don't be surprised if people say there's no need for a change. The reason to revert on CBS is because the old spelled out version is definitively not correct in 2024. oknazevad (talk) 22:14, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edit war on The Looney Tunes Show

Can you check on the edits made by CriticallyThinking to make sure they are conducive to The Looney Tunes Show? It’s over very minor wording and I want to avoid it turning into an edit war of duelling egos. Ciscocat (talk) 13:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your ego in edit-warring is what caused admins to ban you from editing other pages, such as Tom & Jerry (2021). Critics infamously criticized the series for its writing and departures from what made the Looney Tunes unique, even its lack of visual comedy. It's a fact. CriticallyThinking (talk) 13:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit/removal on Luther Bible Talk on 09/11/24

Hi, I was the poster of the comment on the Luther Bible Talk page about Leviticus 18:22 which you deleted.

I believe that I brought up a valid point about a possible mistranslation by Luther which is different from the mistranslations that are already mentioned in the article (i.e. the "faith alone" mistranslation) and would add to the article.

Since I'm new to Wikipedia, I decided not to edit the article directly as I don't have enough info on the reasons for the mistranslation (i.e. possible different meaning of the word "Knaben" in the 1500s) or on the original Hebrew/Greek words that were used and how those are used in other parts of the bible. That's why I posted on Talk and not on the article. To gather more info from the experts before adding anything to the article itself. 2A02:8109:F3F:CAA4:0:0:0:97F8 (talk) 06:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When I saw the comment it didn't read as being about the page contents. Sorry if I misread that. In the future it would help to be more specific about what you think should be added or changed in the article. Also, I do recommend registering a user name. oknazevad (talk) 06:40, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

35 mm film

Hello. Thank you for reverting my edit to the 35 mm film redirect page. There are a lot of problems here to be dealt with. The intended navigation was referring specifically to 35 mm movie film. The article which is employing the redirect for navigation, will need to be corrected to a direct link (WP:INTDAB). Currently, there are a lot of articles which are linking to the 35 mm disambiguation page through the redirect instead of the specific film type article they refer to. I just wanted to write to highlight the problem; I don't have the time to devote towards fixing it. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 22:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frontier League 2025 Divisions

Hello,

In response to your reversion of my edit on the "Frontier League" page, the following link shows an updated map of teams for 2025. This map uses four separate colors, which are presumably the realigned divisions for 2025. I can understand wanting to wait until there is more information on them, but don't say I'm "making stuff up."

Frontier League Map - Frontier League StudiedPort5 (talk) 03:18, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. With no announcement of a new alignment anywhere on the website, i do think it's best to wait. oknazevad (talk) 11:55, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tan sources

On the Qwest Corporation article somebody said there may have been some "tan sources". Please clarify what are tan sources? Angela Kate Maureen Pears 15:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fan sources. That it self-published, non-scholarly fan sites. The article as written had no basis anyway, as it was an incorrect of the page. The edits were sound and there was no reason to revert. oknazevad (talk) 19:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Civility

This is a reminder as to Wikipedia:Civility due to you calling my edit, quote, "utterly stupid and inappropriate" on the page for Medieval Times. It is against Wikipedia's rules and policies to make inflammatory and hostile remarks about other editors' contributions (Wikipedia:Assume good faith). Please do not do this with future edits.

Here is a list of tips about edit summaries:

Be clear about what you did, so that other editors can assess your changes accurately.
Use neutral language.
Remain calm.
Don't make snide comments.
Don't make personal remarks about editors.
Don't be aggressive.

Also see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, which lists the normal protocol for starting discussions about a page's content. Obversa (talk) 02:42, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was not uncivil in my revert. You keep insisting on adding inappropriate market risk unrelated to the topic of the article. It was removed months ago for a reason. You are edit warring to restore it despite it being not the subject of the article, exhibiting WP:OWN behavior. oknazevad (talk) 03:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]