Talk:Paramaecium

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

Why NPOV[edit]

The introduction to this page seems to be heavily slanted towards the band, making it appear more like an advertisment then an article.

I think this phrase should be taken out, and then it should be well : They are all-out doom metal at its purest and most melancholic.

Agreed, I am putting the NPOV template back until that sentence has been changed or deleted. Also, I'm not very familiar with this style, but is it really "funereal doom", or should we read "funeral doom"? --IronChris 23:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The page has been changed but "funereal doom" remains... is it really different from funeral doom? Also, "an album any doom-metal fan can enjoy" seems to me to be kind of POV... so I'll remove it if no one minds. --IronChris 01:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

inExordium[edit]

new album, new style, redirect to paramaecium seems inappropriate now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.101.169 (talk) 16:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline[edit]

Hey everyone, every time I have put up a timeline, with the time of the members on the page, it has been removed every single time. If it is unreliable information, why is it on the page to begin with? Please, I ask you to leave it alone if it is sourced. Metalworker14 (Yo) 6:52, September 30, 2016 (UTC)

I'll help with that problem. As soon as you source the dates, especially the start dates, to the day, you can add it back. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Walter does it have to be to the exact date? Because that will be near impossible. There wasn't as much archiving as there is today. Also here's a link giving the exact history. [1] Metalworker14 (Yo) 10:58, October 7, 2016 (UTC)
The year is acceptable, though months are better. Just make sure that you have a reliable source.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:03, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The year is acceptable, but Metalworker14 adds a date. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:05, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Walter, when I add a date, it's usually when the article states that the members joined later on but still within the first year of existence. I apologize for this, I thought I was within reason to do this. Metalworker14 (Yo) 3:50, October 8, 2016 (UTC)
When you add a date to a timeline you usually add it for the first day of the year when no month is known or first of the month if the month is known. That's for band members and albums, the only things where a precise date is required. You also tend to extend the band's timeline into the future. For instance, today is 2016-10-08, and you'll update the timeline to the end of the year. At best, make it end at the start of the month, or if you're adding an entry for an upcoming album, to the date of that album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:02, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A separate issue is WP:PSEUDOHEAD, which I have been applying by using the MOS:ACCESSIBILITY template. Copying the contents of it here:

Do not make pseudo-headings using semicolon markup and try to avoid using bold markup. Screen readers and other machines can only use correctly formatted headings for navigation. If you want to reduce the size of the table of contents (TOC), use {{TOC limit}} instead. In cases where {{TOC limit}} cannot be used because of lower-level headings elsewhere in the article, then using bold for the headings causes the least annoyance for screen reader users.

Heading use (and misuse) examples
Correct pseudo-headings Incorrect pseudo-headings

[Article lead here]
==Section== [level 2]
===Sub-section=== [3]
'''Pseudo-heading'''
==Section== [2]
===Sub-section=== [3]
====Sub-sub-section==== [2]

[Article lead here]
==Section== [level 2]
===Sub-section=== [3]
;Pseudo-heading
==Section== [2]
===Sub-section=== [3]
<small>==Sub-sub-section==</small> [3]

In short,

Incorrect: ;Current members
Correct: '''Current members'''
Incorrect: ;Studio albums
Correct: '''Studio albums'''

You can do the latter from a mobile device as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:08, 8 October 2016 (UTC) @Metalworker14: When you make edits against what I wrote above and what you stated it's a serious problem. The only dates that are not January 1, are July 1 and December 31. Do you have any actual dates? If not, do not add a timeline. They are not important! You even created a pseudo heading! This is why I think you're not a native English speaker: you don't understand what you're being asked to do and you generally don't show any consideration in cooperatively creating an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is a fan zine for you. For the love of God, stop editing now. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:45, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Walter Görlitz:, I do have the exact months for the ones that stated July, as for December 31, the members were only in the band for a year, and I figured you would get mad if I wrote "from:01/01/1999 till:01/01/2000". It seems that you'll get mad anyway I do this. Metalworker14 (Yo) 9:36, October 11, 2016 (UTC)
When I read "I figured" I translate it as WP:OR. Again, why are timelines so important that you have to make information up? You've seen tables that indicate a member was with the band on specific albums or tours, why not limit things to that? Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:40, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I believe the timeline adds a bit of life to the article, not to get weird or anything. Just my opinion on that one. Metalworker14 (Yo) 10:18, October 12, 2016 (UTC)
Pretty pictures are nice, but only when they're accurate. When you have to make assumptions about the timeline graphic, we cease to convey information to the reader and start to make things up: a.k.a. WP:OR. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:17, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Paramaecium. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 05:20, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paramaecium&oldid=1209624459"