User talk:Xeworlebi/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

User:Xeworlebi/Archive

Leave them be

I'm getting pretty damn sick of you reverting my edits with dismissive comments like "Leave them be. Make a damn case. Discuss it. I'm not a vandal and I resent you treating me like one. I don't make arbitrary changes, I have a rationale that I would be happy to explain if it's not obvious to you. Or do you just get off on screwing with me? I spend hours of my time improving articles and you revert it all with some damn macro without a thought.Barsoomian (talk) 11:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For one you change a common format to a new one for no apparent reason, and I'll revert such edits every time, from you or any one else. Secondly you changed one of the headers to "?", which is nonsensical. Every edit I've seen you make has been to try to change common format to your own preferred system, without any reason. And that's getting pretty tiresome, as you already made clear before you have zero interest in using common formats, consistency, and accuse everyone of ganging up on you. Xeworlebi (talk) 11:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See See Talk:List_of_Supernatural_episodes#Writer.27_credit:_.22story.22_and_.22teleplay.22 .
If I did make a mistake, you could fix that and point it out in the edit summary instead of just blowing me off with "Leave it be". And I reject your characterisations of me. So just discuss the edits, preferably without sneering too obviously. Barsoomian (talk) 11:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the № symbol of course created the "?" as I used an external editor which apparently mangled whatever encoding that symbol uses. I'm careful about that on articles that use Chinese or some other foreign characters, but that's a trivial fix once you point it out, and is no justification for the bulk revert you did. Barsoomian (talk) 12:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's just one extra thing to pile on the heap. Xeworlebi (talk) 12:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously you're well experienced here and know how to put down people while avoiding violating the letter of civility rules. Unwatching this now; no reply necessary. Barsoomian (talk) 03:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tags

I've reverted for two reasons. One, there's no reason to tag so many articles; the better approach is to bring it up at the central page and see what responce is received there. Second, some of your tags overlap and there is no reason to clutter the top of the page. --Ckatzchatspy 19:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "there's no reason to tag so many articles", these articles have problems, tagging them is perfectly appropriate. If you're referring to {{
Plot}}, these do not overlap, see the TfD for more info if you want, bottom line, these are two different issues. Xeworlebi (talk) 19:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
The "allplot" and "plot" tags both speak to the same issue; choose one or the other. If you feel the article consists only of plot, then "allplot" is appropriate - but it would incorporate the same idea that "plot" covers. Plus, it only serves to confuse readers as they're seeing a massive template farm that appears to repeat itself.(I've no problem if you want to replace one with the other, but two is excessive.) --Ckatzchatspy 19:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No they don't. {{
Plot}} is about the plot being too long, not that the article consists of only plot, again see the relevant TfDXeworlebi (talk) 19:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
I have already reviewed the discussion. There is consensus that they address different aspects of the plot issue, but no indication that they are fundamentally different enough to warrant simultaneous inclusion in the same article. To echo what one contributor said, you are simultaneously arguing that a dual-tagged article needs to a) reduce the size of the plot and b) keep the plot, but increase the supporting material in the article to balance it out. As I said already, I'm not challenging the idea that one of them (your preference) is needed, only that using both at the same time is excessive, unwarranted, and creates clutter in the article that affects the reader. --Ckatzchatspy 19:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing that, I'm arguing that a) the plot should be reduced in size and b) that real-world information should be added. Two entirely different issues, which warrants two different tags. I'm not sure were you get the "keep the plot" from, neither tag suggests that. Xeworlebi (talk) 19:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya! . You reverted my edit, which added a hat note. Your edit summary links to the page on hatnotes, only. Please be a little more specific about your reasoning. Thank you. duff 16:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly do you need further info on? I'll be more than happy to explain it to you. I'm not sure how to be more specific,
WP:NAMB is already a very specific part of hat-note uses. Xeworlebi (talk) 16:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
FYI:On my device, WP:NAMB redirects to the top of the hatnotes guideline page, and does not continue down. However, I searched the page & found the other instance, which I've read. To me, the hatnote added seems helpful and appropriate. Was there some reason you chose not to simply edit the hatnote for the eponymous album; leaving the portion that led to the eponymous EP, where I also placed an analogous tag? Further, the
Fleet Foxes (EP) hatnote, I am sure you'll agree, could also be edited, such that each points only to each other, (where ambiguity certainly does exist) and not back to the source of the eponymity. My sense is that the eponymity alone is enough to merit leaving both (all) pointing both ways, as with the hatnote on the band article. duff 17:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't watch the EP page, so I did not see what you did there, on the bands article it is appropriate to link to both, as it is not disambiguated. The other articles shouldn't have the band as a hat-note because no-one would end up there looking for the band. I do see the logic in leaving the EP part of the hat-note. But this might also be a case of
WP:RELATEDXeworlebi (talk) 17:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't think this actually is a case of WP:RELATED, which would have us locate that point at the See also section (at the bottom) or at an expansion of the article itself (in the middle), with the Main template. These two articles do not bear a similar relation to one another as do the articles
Extraterrestrial life in popular culture
. Here's why:
  • Completely different tracklists
  • released 2 years apart: EP 2006 & album 2008, with another EP in between them that thereby rightly precludes its showing up on the infobox chronology.
  • Editors on both the EP & the Album pages would likely then establish by wasting time in talkspace that no, this is specifically not about that.
The dab belongs as a hat-note, on both articles, up at the top where the ambiguity can be addressed forthwith, without wading through the article & comparing tracklists. I do see your point about neither hatting back to the main band article & and agree I with it. I've fixed them both. duff 00:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to
WP:RELATED, not the album/EP articles. Xeworlebi (talk) 06:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Guest stars

Is there a policy on guest stars on episode descriptions? I've always seen them and haven't heard anything different up until now. Thanks! Kevinbrogers (talk) 01:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if there's an explicit one, but I've always seen it as 'if they're not notable to have their character mentioned in the the summary, then they're not notable enough to mention'. Having such 'after plot info', has a tendency to get out of hand, first it's guests, then it's music, trivia etc.
MOS says "To balance this, the relevant in-universe information can be presented in the plot section of the article with actor names listed beside their relevant characters as "(ACTOR)", while the real world information can be presented in a "Casting" subsection under "Production"." with the other options being a cast/character list and casting sections. Xeworlebi (talk) 04:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Very true (about it getting out of hand). I'll work through and put the relevant info in the leads, as it currently is with List of White Collar episodes, if there are no objections. It seems that that would be a better way to do it anyway. Kevinbrogers (talk) 04:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That would be primarily for the main cast, guests are usually added after the characters name in the plot, for example like the episode "Free Fall", "Home Invasion", "Bottlenecked", etc. Although the plots for the latter episodes aren't really fit for that, as they don't really have any text. Xeworlebi (talk) 05:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I see. I'll get on that soon, and also try to clean up some other shows. Kevinbrogers (talk) 05:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then

Can you atleast tell me which template appears when someone replyed to you but on their page? 92.30.163.2 (talk) 11:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your last post made no sense, this one just a little more. No template appears, someone can put {{Talkback}} on your talk page, but that's not a requirement, and some people don't like to get those as they're watching the page anyway. Xeworlebi (talk) 11:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, Sorry for the inconvenience and I won't bother you again.92.30.163.2 (talk) 11:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, if you have a question you can ask no problem, but your first post made no sense to me, and looked like random IP nonsense. Xeworlebi (talk) 11:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Combat Hospital