Jump to content

User talk:EEMIV/Archive 20

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is a talk page archive. Please do not edit its contents.
If you'd like to get in touch with me, please leave a new message on my current talk page --EEMIV


07:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

06:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

07:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

07:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, EEMIV. You have new messages at Raymie's talk page.
Message added 20:33, 19 July 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Raymie (tc) 20:33, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

07:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Deaf culture

[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Deaf culture. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tarquin / Tarkin

[edit]

My good faith edit, which you reverted, was intended to assist those readers who might be looking for the Ancient Roman kings, but don't know how to spell Tarquin. If they accidentally and inadvertently land at Tarkin, how are they supposed to know to try the disambiguation of Tarkin as a way forward? You place more of a burden on orthographically challenged users than they deserve, and I would like you to reconsider your judgement. Megapod (talk) 13:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would take quite a few mis-clicks to arrive at Grand Moff Tarkin while doing a search for Tarquin or Tarkin. While well-intentioned, header text/links like that is more appropriate at e.g. likely typos, such as Tarkin, Tarqin, etc. But I don't see any likely typos set as automatic redirects to Grand Moff Tarkin; lacking that, the character article itself isn't an appropriate location for even well-intentioned header redirection. --EEMIV (talk) 22:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

08:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

07:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

07:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

07:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Artpop

[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Artpop. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On plot spoilers.

[edit]

This is from a siilar discussion I had with Jim1138, which you may find interesting, even if you disagree with it:

There are two categories of plot summaries:

1. Gives the general gist of the story, generally excluding specific details of character deaths, romances, falling-outs, and many others, unless they are a vital part of the plot in progress. For example, if a character death is a crucial motivator for another character, and thus drives the story forward, an exception could be easily justified.

2. A blow-by-blow account of the entire story, generally considered inappropriate for an encyclopedia.

I see example #1 much more often in Wikipedia, and thus considered it the standard approach. Am I incorrect?

<snip>

Gibbousmoon100 (talk) 05:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

   @Gibbousmoon100: I'm not that familiar. I would suggest Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary for a guide. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 06:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@Jim1138: Thanks for the link. The following sentence from that page seems to indicate that that entire sentence should be deleted, rather than having a spoiler tag placed before it: "However, when summarizing a plot and choosing what details to include, editors should use discretion. The advantages of exhaustive coverage of the work are in dynamic tension with the desire to preserve the artistic qualities of the work for readers.[4] Wikipedia should contain potentially "spoiling" detail where it substantially enhances the reader's understanding of the work and its impact but be omitted when it merely ruins the experience of the work of fiction for our readers." Does including the death of the protagonist at the conclusion of the story enhance the reader's understanding of the work, in your opinion? Gibbousmoon100 (talk) 06:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

   @Gibbousmoon100: I would think the protagonist's death should be discussed. Otherwise, the plot would be incomplete. Someone who saw the film and wishing to refresh their memory would want that info. Someone who hadn't seen the film and doesn't want it spoiled should stop at a heading of "plot". Stopping can be difficult! Should the heading "Story" be changed to "Plot"? Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 06:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@Jim1138: I disagree with you for the reasons I already outlined (namely, that I consider example #1 to be a superior plot description to example #2), but if you were to argue that this particular example represents a gray area, I would have to concede to that. But I've read many dozens, if not hundreds, of great plot summaries on wikipedia (of stories I've already seen or read) that gracefully exclude spoiling the very end of the story. In any case, I don't care enough either way to push the issue, not being a huge Star Wars fan. But I expect the paragraph left as is to both surprise and "ruin the experience of the work of fiction for our readers" for long-time users of wikipedia who are accustomed to plot summaries that adhere to my example #1 above. Gibbousmoon100 (talk) 07:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

   @Gibbousmoon100: I bow to your superior expertise. I am not one for films in general. Thanks for the discussion. I hope I didn't make this overly complex. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 08:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

In summary, I feel that giving the gist of the plot, which need not include the ending (or any number of other details, even what some would consider important details!), is sufficient for an encyclopedic entry. The published wikipedia guidelines are consistent with this perspective, though they do unfortunately leave this particular question open to interpretation.Gibbousmoon100 (talk) 06:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

09:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

07:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

09:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

08:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Talk page layout. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

09:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

09:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

06:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)