| Revision as of 11:00, 29 October 2007 editTony Sidaway (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers81,722 edits →Spoiler warning in Johnny Gaddaar: If it is to have a spoiler tag, could you write it to be more explicit?← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:34, 30 October 2007 edit undoTony Sidaway (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers81,722 edits Remove old stuffNext edit → | ||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| <center>'''Deleted page contents are accessible in the '''</center> | <center>'''Deleted page contents are accessible in the '''</center> | ||
| <!-- Add discussion edit below. Append new discussions after any earlier discussions. --> | <!-- Add discussion edit below. Append new discussions after any earlier discussions. --> | ||
| == Clarification of ] == | |||
| Do you really mean to give each of 1400 administrators the power to overturn a community ban? If so, what's the point of ever discussing a ban because surely there will always be at least one administrator in such a large group who will revert any ban. Indeed, there are some administrators who disagree with ever banning any user under any circumstances. If this is the position, we may as well delete the entire community banning section, because it is a degenerate case that serves no purpose. | |||
| I am not trying to change the way things work. I want to clarify the policy so it reflects practice and common sense, to avoid confusion. Thank you for taking the time to look at this. - ] <sup>]</sup> 17:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : They already do have that power, subject to ]. --] 17:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: I agree with you. As long as administrators abide by an obvious consensus, which they are supposed to do, there is no problem with your formulation. | |||
| :: Concrete case: Administrator A indefs an account and requests a ban. B undoes the block. A community discussion occurs, overwhelmingly supporting a ban. Administrator C restores the block. Administrator D undoes the block. Who, if anyone, is wrong? - ] <sup>]</sup> 17:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Administrator D must not undo the ban in the face of consensus. He should instead hold a discussion to explain why he thinks the ban is wrong, and in that discussion if the community support for the ban reduces to the level where an unblock is seen as acceptable, and only then, should he consider unblocking. | |||
| ::: B's action would be legitimate if there was doubt about the block (this happens quite often in practice. Even the best admin occasionally makes some strange calls.) | |||
| ::: In other words, same as with any potentially controversial administrator action. --] 17:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I agree with you fully. We have exactly ] about to be accepted Arbcom, titled Sadi Carnot. I am administrator A. Your comments would be welcome because you seem to be the editor who is most familiar with the history and application of this policy. - ] <sup>]</sup> 17:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: The arbitrators know this stuff backwards. They don't need my advice. --] 20:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Indeed. I appreciate your perspective on this. Thank you. - ] <sup>]</sup> 20:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Administration is an inexact science. I could cite some very prominent instances where administrator D has got away with pre-emptive action in unblocking in the face of consensus. It's a hard sell, though. --] 20:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Tony, first, thank you for your input. Following your comments and the discussion at ] I have gently edited the policy to improve clarity. Take a look and let me know if the changes are in agreement with our actual practice. - ] <sup>]</sup> 15:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Prison Mike == | |||
| No worries on the Prison Mike war.--] 02:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Good. Thanks for getting back to me. I felt I'd worded some of my comments too harshly. --] 02:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | ==]== | ||
| I am aware that ] says that spoiler tags are ''usually'' redundant. But not always. The article really doesn't have a plot summary (except for the first few minutes of the film). It is mostly character description. So "Plot summary" is an inaccurate section title, and the spoiler tag is needed. Thank you. ] 15:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC) | I am aware that ] says that spoiler tags are ''usually'' redundant. But not always. The article really doesn't have a plot summary (except for the first few minutes of the film). It is mostly character description. So "Plot summary" is an inaccurate section title, and the spoiler tag is needed. Thank you. ] 15:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 01:34, 30 October 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Magnolia (film)
I am aware that WP:SPOILER says that spoiler tags are usually redundant. But not always. The article really doesn't have a plot summary (except for the first few minutes of the film). It is mostly character description. So "Plot summary" is an inaccurate section title, and the spoiler tag is needed. Thank you. Ward3001 15:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- A spoiler tag is usually a sign of poor section labelling (and not knowing where to go to find out the plot is another indication of this). I'll take a closer look. --Tony Sidaway 15:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- The article may need improvement (i.e., a clearer plot summary), but as it is there is no plot summary, and the spoiler tag is needed. Ward3001 15:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
The Core section deletion
Hi...
You appear to have deleted about 2/3 of the Misplaced Pages article on the 2003 movie The Core. I was reading it earlier and now the section on "Scientific Innaccuracies" has been removed completely. From what I read there appears to have been considerable work gone into producing that section and I was wondering why you deleted it in its entirety?
DamageW 17:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- I removed it because it appears to be the unsupported opinion of the editor. It might make a good article on his blog, or even make a good section in a wikibook about scientific errors in films, but it appears to be original research so I removed it. --Tony Sidaway 18:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- It's a fair point that the comments are not made up of detailed and referenced scientific analyses, but nevertheless the content is well-structured and unbiased and, in keeping with the sci-fi nature of the film, help to explain the poor box-office success and general public opinion of the film. All of the information listed can be found in the IMDB trivia and goofs sections, as well as detailed on many other movie websites out there - although the Wiki entries are far more comprehensive. I feel that having all the different views about this film - good and bad - present in one place make the article more complete. Since we're talking about a Hollywood movie it could be said that all statements about it could be deemed as "original research", but that's the nature of movies, they often defy precise definition and analysis. The majority of other movie articles on Wiki have similar sections, it's exactly what I would expect to find when looking up a film in an encylopedia, as I want to know how much of the Hollywood-esque "sci-fi" is based on reality or is in fact fatally flawed. However, I freely admit I'm not fully conversant on the Wiki guidelines so I welcome your views on this. DamageW 18:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- If, say, a working scientist in the relevant field has published a discussion of scientific errors in the film, we should write about that. The material on imdb and the like isn't really what we'd consider reliably sourced.
- The question of whether the film's lack of success at the box office was influenced by bad science is a big one, and one that we can't really conclude without overwhelming evidence. Other movies featuring bad science have had success because, with all their faults, they've been entertaining.
- If there are "scientific errors" sections in other articles about movies, they should also be removed where the enumerated errors are not meticulously sourced.
- The way Misplaced Pages works is that we don't write our own opinions into the articles. Instead we research significant opinions that have been expressed by reliable sources, and write about them, in the context in which those opinions have been made. --Tony Sidaway 19:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Spoiler warning in Johnny Gaddaar
Hi. Thanks for your edit to the Johnny Gaddaar article. However, I have reinserted the spoiler warning, because as per WP:Spoiler, In a work that is uncommonly reliant on the impact of a plot twist or surprise ending — a murder mystery, for instance — a spoiler tag may be appropriate even within a properly labeled "Synopsis" section. I have seen the movie so I know the warning is required. Amit@Talk 02:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- I've read the plot summary and I notice only that it talks vaguely of "plot twists" but doesn't actually reveal any. If it is to have a spoiler tag, could you write it to be more explicit? --Tony Sidaway 11:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)