Talk:List of Extras episodes

BBC Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tasks for WikiProject BBC:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Improve BBC, BBC News (TV channel) and BBC News to Good Article status following previous reviews, create BBC Computer Literacy Project (in light of forthcoming 30th anniversary)
Cleanup : Chucklevision - references and general clean-up, Pebble Mill Studios - over-detailed and long, BBC World Service Television - unreferenced and confusing
Copyedit : BBC News, Broadcasting House
Expand : Top 20 start-class BBC articles with most importance: BBC Japan, BBC World Service Television, BBC Lifestyle, BBC Two Northern Ireland
NPOV : Criticism of the BBC (See comments)
Stubs : Stub-Class BBC articles
Other : *Restructure the category
- Add infoboxes to the BBC articles without infoboxes
- Add free-use images to biographical articles where possible
- Add references to Goa Mix (see assessment) and Coat of arms of the BBC
- Return Dad's Army to a Good article. (See comments)
- Reassess BBC following improvements to article.

Comedy

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Lists List‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
List	This article has been rated as List-class on the project's quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Television: British / Episode coverage

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the British television task force.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.

Removal of category and major plot points

I've reinstated the category Category:BBC-related lists - which should definitely be present, as well as the very relevant info which has been repeatedly removed from episodes 1 and 2. There has been no attempt to justify the removal of that cat. As anyone who has watched the episodes in question will know, the birthday party is a major part of the first episode and very relevant to both main characters, Andy & Maggie. A third of that episode is set at the party. In addition, Andy & Maggie try to avoid it after being invited and talk about it before both attending. Maggie's one-night stand is very relevant to the second episode and by far the most important event for her character during that episode. I rewatched those episodes this month, so I know that the removed info is a vital part of a good summary and far from trivial. Obviously, no-one would feel justified in removing chunks from the synopses of episodes which they haven't watched. It's bizarre that someone who has watched the episodes would remove what they know to be important parts of them. Jim Michael (talk) 05:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Point one of WP:PLOT reads "Summary-only descriptions of works". Per MOS:PLOT "Plot summaries and similar recaps of fictional elements (like a character's biography) should be written in an out-of-universe style, presenting the narrative from a displaced, neutral frame of reference from the characters or setting". Most pertinent is WP:TVPLOT which states "Plot sections should summarize the core storyline(s), but not offer a scene-by-scene sequence of everything that happens, or attempt to evaluate, interpret or analyze it." All of these reinforce the fact that claims of "vital" plot points are WP:POV and WP:SPECULATION. It is bizarre that someone who has "edited for years" has yet to understand these policies. MarnetteD|Talk 17:10, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I followed those policies. The plot expansions I made were vital. Like I said, a third of the first episode takes place at the party - that doesn't include the characters talking about it beforehand. The party is, without a shadow of a doubt, a very important part of that episode. You know that full well because you noticed its importance when you watched that episode. Even a short summary has to include the party. That's not speculating or using POV. How can you claim it's not important to the episode? Likewise, to omit Maggie's one-night stand from episode 2 is also a major omission, which you know because you remember its importance to that episode when you watched it. The party and the one-night stand are core storylines of their respective episodes. You still haven't tried to justify why you repeatedly removed Category:BBC-related lists, which is definitely applicable. You broke WP:3RR, which you know full well that you're not allowed to do; it's you - not me - who has broken WP rules on this article. Jim Michael (talk) 17:50, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously did not read them as your continued use of the word "vital" shows - You also did not notice that the category has been restored. MarnetteD|Talk 18:18, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did notice that you finally restored the cat. My point stands that you wrongly removed it repeatedly - without trying to justify why you were doing so.

I did read those guidelines - years ago.

The party is a vital part of the first episode. You must have noticed, when you watched that episode, that the party constitutes a third of the episode (not including talking about it beforehand) and that it includes some major events of that episode. How did you come to the conclusion that the party isn't a major part of that episode and therefore shouldn't be mentioned at all?

When you watched the second episode, you could clearly see that Maggie's one-night stand is the most important thing to happen to her character during the episode. What made you think it not important to mention it in that episode's synopsis?

Why did you break 3RR? That's a basic rule that you've known about for years. Jim Michael (talk) 21:41, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First WP:3RR hasn't been broken. Next you "may" have read the policies "years ago" but you obviously don't understand them. I have to wonder if this is getting to be a WP:CIR situation. You are free to start a WP:RFC otherwise your continuing to repeat the so called "vital" plot points is just wasting time. MarnetteD|Talk 21:53, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You made 3 reverts in just under 22 hours - you definitely broke 3RR. The proof is in the history (19:04 on 26 May; 00:09 on 27 May; 16:58 on 27 May) - so it's bizarre that you deny it. Why did you do break that important policy, then deny that you did so?

I'm a very competent writer, as you can clearly see. Do you see me make loads of mistakes in grammar, spelling etc.?

When you watched episode 1, you noticed that a third of the episode takes place at the party. What gave you the ridiculous idea that it's not an important part of the episode?

When you watched episode 2, you noticed that Maggie had a one-night stand, the most important thing to happen to her character during that episode. What made you think it's not an important part of the episode?

You don't even try to answer these points because you know they are major parts of each episode, and therefore need to be mentioned in their respective episode synopses. It's not wasting time to state them, because they are the important plots that you repeatedly removed and therefore the centre of this conversation. I'm trying to have a constructive discussion - whereas you're avoiding the substance of the dispute. All this wouldn't be necessary if you hadn't removed a major plot from each of 2 episodes.

Stop making false assumptions about me, talking down to me and putting facts in scare quotes. Jim Michael (talk) 00:00, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First, per WP:3RR my first edit does not count as a revert but, by all means, file a report if you feel the need. You might remember that it takes two to edit war though. Next, I responded with links to all of the policies in my first post. I do not feel the need to repeat myself. The fact that you continue to ignore the policies is why I have assume that you do not understand them. As I have already stated please feel free to file a WP:RFC but I am not going to respond to the same questions over and over again. MarnetteD|Talk 00:15, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop refactoring your posts as you did here per talk page guidelines. MarnetteD|Talk 00:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your first edit certainly does count as a revert. You reverted my edits in their entirety - neatly fitting the description of a revert.

For years I had already read, understood, and had been following, all of the policies which you left links to.

You haven't tried to explain once as to why you claim that the party (which takes up a third of the first episode) and the one-night stand (which is Maggie's main storyline of the second) aren't important plots of their respective episodes.

What makes you think that there's a guideline against an editor adding to his own talk page comments? Jim Michael (talk) 00:39, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A) and you reverted my edits so file your report and see what happens. b) no you have not been following the polices. Just one example is the fact that, in this situation, all of your posts are about your POV wording. c) WP:REDACT is what makes me think there is a "policy" (not guideline) against adding to, or changing posts, that have been replied to. My link clearly shows that you altered yuour post AFTER I have replied to it. File a WP:RFC as I am no longer going round and round about this. MarnetteD|Talk 01:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edits twice, which is allowed. You reverted mine three times in less than 22 hours, which isn't allowed.

All of my posts are about the major plots which I added to episodes 1 & 2, which you repeatedly removed. You're still avoiding even trying to explain why you claim that the party and the one-night stand aren't significant parts of their respective episodes. In all your edit summaries and replies, you have made no attempt to discuss that. A third of the first episode takes place at the party - which you know full well, because you noticed that when you watched it. Likewise, you noticed that Maggie's one-night stand was her main storyline in episode 2. Jim Michael (talk) 16:14, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]