Talk:The Way of the Dog

The Simpsons Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject The Simpsons, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to The Simpsons 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.The SimpsonsWikipedia:WikiProject The SimpsonsTemplate:WikiProject The SimpsonsThe Simpsons

Low

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

Tasks you can do:

edit

Collaboration: Featured topic Drive
Copyedit:
Merge:
Cleanup: Ralph Wiggum, Milhouse Van Houten
Shorten plot synopsis:
Free-use images: Jon Vitti, Pamela Hayden, Greg Daniels, Ian Maxtone-Graham, Jim Reardon, Alf Clausen
Reference: Bongo Comics Group, The Heartbroke Kid, World of Springfield
Expand: The Simpsons Theme, Bongo Comics, Mark Kirkland, Jim Reardon, The Simpsons: Tapped Out
Stubs: Neil Affleck, Bob Anderson (director), Wes Archer, J. Stewart Burns More...

Television: 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 Episode coverage task force.

Animation

	Animation portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

External links

It is not clear to me what value is provided by linking to a stub article on an external wiki. Happy to consider a rationale if one is forthcoming but for the moment I'm removing it per WP:ELBURDEN, which indicates that disputed external links "should normally be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them". Nikkimaria (talk) 02:47, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, Why is this exempt from WP:BRD? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by that. BRD is an optional process, and as I've mentioned above per ELBURDEN disputed links are kept out until a positive consensus for their inclusion can be demonstrated. In the interests of developing a consensus on this matter, do you have a rationale for inclusion to present? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:10, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, Yes BRD is optional. Wikipedia:Edit warring is not. "An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable" which is what you have done several times here without seeking consensus and only posting to the talk page after the third time you've removed material that other editors didn't object to being on the page. Why is your repeated restoration of a preferred version of this article exempt from that policy? For that matter, WP:ELBURDEN recommends following Wikipedia:Dispute resolution which says to post to the talk page and "Do not continue edit warring". Is there something special about this link on this article? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's both avoid further edit-warring by discussing the disputed content. What is your reasoning for inclusion? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, It's useful for providing readers with content that would not be appropriate here (trivia, deep-dive continuity, several pieces of non-free media, links to bios on the individual characters, quotations, etc.) ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Links to bios on the individual characters can and should be provided locally. The extent of non-free media suggests a potential linkvio concern, which is another reason not to include the link. We are also already linking to a different wiki which provides a more extensive list of trivia - if trivia listings warrant linking, which is questionable, that niche is already filled. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, Wikipedia is not the appropriate venue for a deep-dive biography of Gil or Comic Book Guy, so it's useful to provide a resource that gives that kind of niche information if someone wants to better understand. Why choose one wiki over another? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:06, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't object to removing the other wiki. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, I know that, because you did it twice. If you genuinely didn't understand my point: Why would you remove one wiki and keep the other? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One article is better developed than the other. However, if consistency is important, I'd advocate for removing both over keeping both. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, That's understood, as you've kept on saying that and also edit-warred over your preferred version that removes both. Why would you remove both links? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both have linkvio issues, and in both cases most of the content that is not/should not be covered on enwiki is trivial and of low quality. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, I have never seen anyone claim that a link on Wikipedia contradicts WP:LINKVIO because the target includes screenshots of a television show. Can you give me examples of any discussion re: that or other links that were taken down for these purported linkvio issues? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an example that specific to hand, but a comparable situation is this one: a compilation without critical commentary. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, I think that a "Here's a bunch of random stuff with a song I stole" video is quite different from a "Here are screencaps that are relevant to the episode being discussed" webpage. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Linking_to_sites_that_reproduce_portions_of_copyrighted_material ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A gallery of images on a topic is not significantly different, to my mind, than a compilation of video clips on a topic. Plus the link doesn't have much in the way of "discussion" at all. Not seeing much in the way of redeeming features regardless. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Koavf

He keeps falling under the false impression that runtimes go on episode pages for TV shows, not main TV show pages. He has been told over and over again not to do it, but he flat out refuses to listen. The other episodes don't have the runtime, what is his fetish for having it on this specific one?! Whatever the reason, he needs to stop re-adding it, and leave the page alone! TheImmortalKitten (talk) 20:44, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TheImmortalKitten: Thank you for posting here but please adjust your language to be more appropriate. See Template:Infobox Simpsons episode. As I have explained to, you this has a parameter for length: that's why it's there. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:51, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TheImmortalKitten, Please give me some indication that have actually read or comprehended Template:Infobox Simpsons episode, WP:BRD, and WP:3RR. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]