Talk:Steve Irwin/Archive 6

message: The memorial site www.RIPSteve.com was taken down. It is an appropriate site and not spam. CNN contacted the webmaster Rich Powell for permission to talk and show the site on their program. It is not a joke or a spam site. It's not a "Best Fan Site EVER!!!!111!!!". It is legit and respectful and should be included.
Sirengarg 11:09PM EST, 5 Sepetember 2006 (UTC)
:My guess is that immature people were making rude and disrespectful comments.  Hopefully the webmaster will institute some sort of filtering system whereby only respectful and decent comments are shown on the site, while the vandalistic ones are removed.Crashdacoot 04:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the link was taken down well before the invasion of poor taste. A good 3+ hours before the invasion on the RIPSteve.com forum started. And all the horrid posts and members were deleted and banned and he has more mods to control it all. There was simply no good reason to take it down, other then maybe one person's personal opinion on not allowing it. Sirengarg 12:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why was memorial site taken down? 

message: From the section on his rescue of the man in Mexico is the line
   "Jones reported not recognising his celebrity rescuer as he had never seen Irwin on television."
In anyway needed?  It doesn't seem to fit into the article Vohod 01:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed something similar before in my rewrite of that section and it seems to have crept its way back in. It's a tough call, but it may be okay as a throwaway line since it does relate to a media celebrity's recognizability. Professor Ninja 03:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this needed?

message: Should we include this link on the page? (link below). It had been posted on this talk page before, but was not clear. It is a video on YouTube, relating to Steve Irwin's death.
:Nope. It's some kind of joke that has no real relevance to this article. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 15:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this link suitable? 

message: When Stainton said, "he pulled it out and the next minute he's gone," could the he actually refer to the stingray, and not Irwin?  As far as I know, Stainton never clarified what he meant; the sources saying that Irwin pulled out the barb are just interpretations of Stainton's statement. Zagalejo 14:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps (although that would be a peculiar use of "he"). Imagine how the stingray would have reacted if Irwin had really pulled onout its tail. — LazyEditor (talk|contribs) 16:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Who's pulling out the barb?

message: Does anyone know if detailed information, such as coordinates, were released regarding the location where Irwin's fatal injury occured? Coolgamer 14:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats all i've stubled upon so far: theage.com.au map --Addicted 15:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Detailed location? 

message: In the Trivia section, there's a suspect anecdote about an injury resembling a frontal lobotomy, which sounds like a joke. The only reference is to the IMDB. Can anyone verify that Steve Irwin actually said this, and not as a joke? Even if said in seriousness, it's probably medically inaccurate, and contradicts numerous occasions where Steve admitted and displayed normal fear reactions.
Djcastel 15:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it, the reference provided had no mention of him saying that, and I could't find anything with a quick Google search. --Richmeister 16:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Injury resembling lobotomy? 

message: So is Steve irwin going to get a state funeral?
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.50.79.110 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 5 September 2006 (utc).
: "Steve Irwin will get a state funeral if that's what his family wants, Queensland Premier Peter Beattie says."  --Addicted 16:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: please go and check the newspaper-pages yourself. and "to watch it" instead of "attending it" - that says at least enough for me. --Addicted 17:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: State Funeral

message: This article has a long list of references and seems well written. It doesn't seem too far off of being a featured article. I think in Steve's memory, we should work to that end.--Daysleeper47 16:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a lot of people share your thoughts. The article is getting better and better. It would be great to get FA status. Cvene64 07:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feature Article 

message: I removed a brief discussion on whether Irwin got what he deserved, that also involved a question about whether he attempted to touch the ray. It says in the article that he did not touch the ray, he accidentally boxed it in by swimming over it. Regardless, please don't post such discussions, as they aren't related to improving the article. If you want to read or discuss whether he got what he deserved, go to one of the millions of other sites covering this that allow that kind of chat.--▫Bad▫harlick♠ 09:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed further unrelated discussion. This is not a discussion forum - "how he should be remembered" has nothing to do with improving the article.--▫Bad▫harlick♠ 09:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In my clumsyness of a newcomer to Wikipedia's mark up language, I've accidentally linked the name of Bad Harlick to my User_Talk page instead of changing my own. I hope this is fixable. -- Joe Capricorn 22:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed this.--▫Bad▫harlick♠ 09:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed comments 

message: hello everyone
please add this interwiki to the hebrew wikipedia: :he:סטיב ארווין. thanks, 88.152.202.166 17:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  interwiki 

message: I've reviewed the nomination (expedited as requested) and awarded good article status.  Recommend standardizing web page access dates in the footnotes.  Otherwise, good work.  I suggest nominating for FA after the media attention subsides and the page stabilizes.  Regards, Durova 17:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, beg to differ. Removed based on stability criteria - still getting edited too often. – Chacor 17:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The fact that it's sprotected doesn't help it imo. When it gets unprotected it'd just receive another whole chunk of vandalism and constant edits (I believe figures thrown up include over 20 edits in a minute). Is it really a good idea to designate something protected as a good article? – Chacor 17:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, since you asked ... there are articles recognized as good articles that are locked.  For example, elephant.  If I had more time, I'd dig around for some more ... but, you get the idea.  Just because something is protected doesn't mean it can't be a good article, let alone a candidate. Resident Lune 17:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Elephant becamee a GA way before protection due to Colbert. – Chacor 17:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jordanhill railway station became a GA shortly after its creation while editing was still frequent.  Tiger Woods and United States and many other GAs see frequent editing.  The GA God is page protected.  I'm a regular contributor at Joan of Arc, an FA that receives vandal attacks almost daily due to high traffic.  I think most editors interpret stability in terms of structural integrity and editor harmony rather than vandalism attempts or minor copyedits. Durova 18:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Technically any Wikipedian who isn't an active contributor to this page could promote it to GA, yet the article is good with or without the label.  I'd suggest establishing a consensus by persuading the editor who objected or waiting as that editor recommends. Durova 20:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Among other things the introduction was cut back to one paragraph, which means that the article does not satisfy WP:LEAD. I'm going to restore my text which tried to summarize his career in three sentences, and I would hope that editors would modify what I write (e.g. conforming it with sourced portions of the article) rather than remove it. The introduction should be the equivalent of a short article on the subject, giving a complete (if not thorough) understanding of the topic. It isn't adequate to say he had a TV show and owned a zoo. --Dhartung | Talk 03:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article 

message: To improve the article, this point should be discussed. I see that Irwin "boxed' the animal in, but did he touch him(the ray)or try to touch him?--68.228.148.52 17:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No it shouldn't be discussed. The article is perfectly clear on how the incident happened. Steve swam over the top of the ray, meaning the ray thought that Steve, who was floating above it, was going to attack. He didn't touch the ray. From the article: "He came on top of the stingray and the stingray's barb went up and into his chest and put a hole into his heart," said Stainton. the stingray "felt threatened because Steve was alongside and there was the cameraman ahead." In such a case, the stingray responds by automatically flexing the serrated barb on its tail. --▫Bad▫harlick♠ 18:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Did Irwin touch the ray?