Talk:2012 Scotties Tournament of Hearts

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

Dates[edit]

Putting the day of the week is not redundant, while repeating the time zone for each date is. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 02:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dates and Consistency[edit]

What personal attacks are you talking about? Intoronto1125TalkContributions 03:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I think we need to disregard the preference for consistency and first discuss why the days of the week are not necessary. I place days of the week on the pages because they are informative. Personally, I usually don't know what day of the week it is when I look at a certain date, and it'd be convenient for me to be able to look on the article page and see that the game between, for example, Alberta and Manitoba is on "Wednesday, February 22", not just on "February 22". Prayerfortheworld (talk) 04:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, but in this case, consistency with the previous pages does not mean that the previous pages are good examples to be followed in this page. I cited consistency when discussing on the curlingboxes because I used what I felt was good editing style, and with reason, but that's for another discussion. You've yet to provide me with reasons on why there should be no day of week other than the fact that the other pages are formatted as such, which is not a valid reason. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 06:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The two of you should be embarrassed by this conversation. Come to an agreement, remove this conversation from the talk page, and stop acting like children. 99.224.247.9 (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is not definite that there will be no consensus. Honestly, I want to get this done with as well, but the problem is that there is no valid reason to remove the days of the week that has been given. All that's been given is that the pages before are like so, and that is not a valid reason at all. Those precedents can be changed. I am not touting my opinions as superior to yours and trying to force you to acquiesce. That's not my goal. I'm simply asking you that you give valid reasons to support your opinions, as I have mine. When both sides of the argument have been presented, we can then make a reasonable compromise. That's all I'm saying. As of now, my goal is to see your side of the argument so that we can get this whole thing over with. And please consider that you are not the only one who has been experiencing hardship because of this mess. Thanks. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 17:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your reason is not valid at all. All you're telling me is that "this is how it's been done in the past" and that I shouldn't argue with it, which doesn't tell me why exactly the days of week aren't necessary. I wasn't comfortable with your compromise because your reason was not valid. I am completely willing to work with you on this, but I don't feel that it is good to try to come up with a solution without seeing valid reasons from both sides of the argument. I am not bent on getting my own way, and I am very willing to work to consensus. Please, please provide me with something other than pointing back to the previous Scotties pages, because all you're telling me with them is that they have precedents and that I should follow them and not break them, even though the precedents may not portray the information in the best way possible. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 18:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your reason is not a suitable reason! You're simply telling me that this is the way it's been done for the other articles, and that I should not challenge it. I am incapable of providing a solution due to the fact that I don't see why your argument is valid! You haven't given me an adequate reason to consider your argument as valid. Please provide a workable reason so that we can find consensus. Thanks. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 19:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as discussion has come to a standstill, I would like to request a third opinion. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 19:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Before I submit a request, please take a look at this summary of the disagreements and see if you think this is a fair statement of the argument. If this is suitable, I'll post that on the top of the section and request a 3O. I've drawn the quotes from the discussion here and from edit summaries from the article. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 19:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take it that you reviewed the two points and deemed them fair; the third is biased, in my opinion, and so I removed it. I will submit the request now. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The disagreement section should only list the arguments on each side, nothing more, nothing less. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 20:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you really wish to include that statement, I will concede, but I feel that the "has no desire to offer compromise" portion is entirely misleading, so I have removed it. I do have a desire to offer compromise, under the condition that you give me a workable reason to think about, which I feel you have not. However, I will not include that in there, since that is more biased than not, and we are requesting the third opinion in order to have an impartial opinion. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 20:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't make any resolution unless I have a reason to believe that there is no reason to have the days of the week on there, and you've given me none! That's the problem. It's not that I refuse to make a compromise, it's that I have nothing to compromise on unless a reasonable argument is provided! And, in either case, the below should be agreed on by both of us, so please leave that at that. If we were to add more, we would need to add every single bit of action that happened, and we might as well have not had that section made out. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 21:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you are insistent on placing that phrase in, I will request that you add it as a statement of opinion, because that's what I deem it to be. Change made, and I will add my opinion as such. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 21:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2012 Scotties Tournament of Hearts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:35, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2012_Scotties_Tournament_of_Hearts&oldid=1196621966"