User talk:McGill68

Spirit

I understand you're a new user and may be unfamiliar with many Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Please understand I offer this in the most constructive way possible.

Most significantly, we do not move articles without gaining talk-page consensus; we do not do so unilaterally, as you have done and I have reverted. In this case, please see the Wikipedia guideline at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite or indefinite article at beginning of name)#Other cases, which specifically states we do not use the definite article "the" with character names; thus, it is "Joker", not "The Joker", or "The Spirit", as article title, and "the Joker", not "The Joker", or "The Blackhawks", in prose.

Any claims an editor makes requires reliable-source citing. Most of your edits had no such cites. We also don't exhaustively list the creators of each issue of a comic book. A smaller point: We don't use "&" in prose unless it's part of a proper-noun title.

Most important, however, is the protocol of WP:BRD, which in a nutshell states that once your edit is reverted, you go to the article's talk page to discuss it and try to reach consensus with your fellow editors. You don't simply restore the edits or substantially restore the edits — that's called edit-warring, for which there are sanctions.

Again, I understand you're new and I hope this helps. Part of Wikipedia is collegial, collaborative editing with others. I look forward to speaking with you at the talk page for Spirit (comics character).--Tenebrae (talk) 21:54, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I appreciate your constructive response and will attempt to answer in kind.

I do hope that I am going about this the right way.

So, for some perspective - I'm an editor/publisher who works in book/comics publishing and the inconsistencies, inaccuracies and lack of important detail within The Spirit Wikipedia page have bothered me for a long time. I was endeavouring to correct these and add some key information (that I consider to be important with regard to this seminal character).

I can see now that doing this might not be as simple as I thought and, given the fact that I don't have a lot of time on my hands, I might park my attempts for the time being and come back to it when I'm retired. But you clearly know a lot about Wikipedia procedure that I don't, so if you don't mind, I'll ask you a few questions spurred by your feedback:

1) It strikes me that the Wikipedia guideline at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite or indefinite article at beginning of name)#Other cases - which specifically states that Wikipedia does not use the definite article "the" with character names - thus, it is "Joker", not "The Joker", or "The Spirit", as article title - is a protocol that can yield an accurate result MOST of the time but certainly not all of the time. It is clearly failing and fostering/perpetuating an inaccuracy with regard to Will Eisner's The Spirit. While there might be some precedent for The Joker's name oscillating between "Joker" and "The Joker," there's no such precedent for The Spirit. His name is "The Spirit" and the "The" is very much a part of that - to present otherwise is incorrect. I'm assuming that there is a means to make an exception - hence the fact that the Wikipedia pages on The Shadow, The Saint and The Phantom are all correctly presented (they aren't Shadow, Saint and Phantom). Would you have any advice on how we might make this change for the better ("the better" in this case being rendering an empirically accurate result)?

2) With regard to "any claims an editor makes requires reliable-source citing" - I understand. When/if I have time, I'll restore the facts you've removed with citations. I take your point that Wikipedia editors "don't exhaustively list the creators of each issue of a comic book" and will avoid replacing my detailed lists of creators. I had added these lists to replace some inaccuracies that exist in the current version so I will try to think of a more elegant solution that falls within these guidelines. I DO think, though, that it's important to list each new publishing endeavour/fresh imprint when dealing with a series character (if the aim is to be as clear and accurate as possible) and I notice that you've removed some of my additions, rendering the page less accurate. Am I to assume that, if I restore, I should do so with citations? Or was there some other problem with me listing separate publishing volumes?

3) With regard to not using "&" in prose unless it's part of a proper-noun title: I think ampersands have their uses outside of proper-noun titles but I take your point that this is the editorial consensus on Wikipedia. I will respect that consensus and refrain from doing this again.

4) With regard to: "the protocol of WP:BRD, which in a nutshell states that once your edit is reverted, you go to the article's talk page to discuss it and try to reach consensus with your fellow editors. You don't simply restore the edits or substantially restore the edits — that's called edit-warring, for which there are sanctions." You're right, I had absolutely no idea about this and I thank you for your clear explanation. I won't do this again and did not intend to cause any friction

Again, I don't say any of this with a tone of exasperation or sarcasm, I am being sincere. Wikipedia is a wonderful tool that I use all the time in my work and my additions/amendment to this page have been spurred by my personal distaste for reading a sub-par Wikipedia page about a subject (The Spirit) that I'm deeply interested in.

Thanks for taking an interest in my contributions and giving me this feedback.

If it wasn't for diligent editors like yourself, I'm sure that the overall standard of Wikipedia would be significantly reduced.

All the very best McGill68 (talk) 23:35, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate very much your collegiality and your good spirit; we're all volunteers here, and friendliness makes it all more worth it. I, too, am an author and editor, as well as a journalist for more than 40 years, who volunteers way too much time here!

We have mechanisms for changing the names of articles, if you feeling "The" should be added. You can open a discussion on the article take page, or for more serious matters, start a Request for Comment.

I will say that if you look at The Shadow (italicized), you'll see "The Shadow is the name of a collection of serialized dramas, originally in 1930s pulp novels, and then in a wide variety of media." Likewise, The Phantom is the comic strip proper-noun title, while a separate article for the character is Phantom (comics). The title of the article for the character Simon Templar is The Saint (Simon Templar), using the italicized proper-noun series title. The text of The Shadow has a University of Oklahoma Press citation specifically saying, "The definite article in The Shadow's name was always capitalized in the pulp adventures," and so the article uses "The Shadow" in reference to the character — but not the article title.

As for The Saint (Simon Templar), that article includes book and TV-show titles such as Vendetta for the Saint and Return of the Saint, with lowercase "t". I would also note that the guideline "other stuff exists" says we shouldn't model articles on other articles' incorrect style. As well, it quotes from a Saint story itself that uses lowercase "t":

In the story "Judith" in The Saint Errant is the line, "'This,' the Saint said to nobody in particular, 'sounds like one of those stories that fellow Charteris might write.'"

RE series listings in prose: We just need to establish the fact they exist, who published them and when, and any distinguishing characteristics. Some content is best left to the bibliography of listings. Mostly this is straightforward and contentious, but sometimes these are judgment calls — or should I say "judgement," since I gather you're English?)   : )   — and editors simply discuss this on the talk page if there are differing views.

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, and I'm personally glad to see someone so meticulous and precise; there are a lot of editors who aren't, and you're to be appreciated. I'm here to help in any way I can. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 17:31, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again for your useful feedback, help and encouragement (and you're right, I AM English), I appreciate it. For me, collegiality and good fellowship are the key to enjoying everything about life and it's always rewarding to correspond with a fellow traveller (you have my journalism career beaten by five years)!

I think your examples with regard to The Shadow/The Phantom/The Saint are certainly illuminating, but for myself and anyone who knows the character well enough (and who cares enough to entertain this conversation!), "Spirit" - no matter how we've got there - looks wrong and fails to correctly represent Eisner's work, while "The Spirit" is as it should be.

For the time being, I'll focus on re-instating and perhaps adding to my deleted amendments, within the guidelines you've suggested (coupled this time around with the necessary citations) and, once that's done, do as you suggest and open a discussion on the article take page - and/or start a Request for Comment. Ultimately, if my argument doesn't prevail, so be it - I will have tried and I'll be satisfied with that!

Thanks also for the offer of help, I am sure I will be taking you up on that.

All the very best McGill68 (talk) 21:35, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, McGill. Just being courteous, and coming by to alert you that I reverted a couple parts of your most recent edits, for reasons explained in the edit-summaries. WP:LEAD gives the guidelines for article leads, which are summaries and don't really contain exhaustive or comprehensive lists of things. Also, WP:RS is a good read detailing what are considered reliable sources. While self-published sites may be used, the author must be a known authority on the subject, which generally, but not always, means he or she is notable enough to be the subject of a Wikipedia article themselves or is demonstrable as an authority (has written non-self-published books on the topic, is referred to in quality journalistic sources as an authority, etc.). --Tenebrae (talk) 19:44, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

All good and understood, I have the relevant published sources, I'll access and add them in due course McGill68 (talk) 00:56, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello Tenebrae - thanks again for your diligence. I have attempted a more elegant resolution of the factual inaccuracy I was trying to correct. As originally phrased, the first para of the "Spirit" article resolved with "Eisner was the editor, but also wrote and drew most entries—after the first few months, with had the uncredited assistance of writer Jules Feiffer and artists Jack Cole and Wally Wood..." In addition to some clumsy phrasing (the effect, I'm guessing, of multiple edits over time), this para creates the impression that Jules Feiffer and Wally Wood came on board a few months after the strip began in 1940, whereas Feiffer joined in '47 and Wood came on board right at the end, in '52. Given that all of this is covered later in the article, I re-composed the final sentence of this paragraph so that it is now a) simplified and b) accurate and added the relevant (published) citation. All the very best McGill68 (talk) 01:32, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Forbidden Planet

Hi, and a belated Welcome to Wikipedia. Thanks for working to improve the site with your edits to Forbidden Planet (retail chain), as we really appreciate your participation. However, the edits had to be reverted, because much of the material you added was uncited, and Wikipedia cannot accept uncited material. Wikipedia requires that the material in its articles be accompanied by reliable, verifiable (usually secondary) sources explicitly cited in the article text in the form of an inline citation, which you can learn to make here. If you ever have any other questions about editing, or need help regarding the site's policies, just let me know by leaving a message for me in a new section at the bottom of my talk page. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 13:56, 5 June 2023 (UTC)