User talk:Rst20xx

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Any comments made by me are in bold. Please add new sections to the bottom - rst20xx.

See also:

Contents

[edit] Too soon

While you did revert the Scarlet Witch, you also put back a lot of incorrect information, (the X-Men did not debut in 1964!) POV (opening paragraph and Avengers history) wrong tenses (throughout) and unnecessary exposition (appearances in video games and animated series get a mention - that's it. Summaries are not encouraged as articles become too long as they are non-canon anyway, which like is kept brief) Much of what is there is a mess and needs tidying up, as it reads like a fan entry. It will be improved upon, and eventually look pretty slick. If in doubt, check out Kang, which I just finished. The previous version missed something like ten appearances and made NO effort to explain the whole Kang/Immortus/Scarlet Centurion conundrum. So, feel free to help out on SW. It is just important to remember that the jigsaw puzzle wasn't actually put together correctly in the first place - I'm just moving the pieces to where they belong.

Asgardian (talk) 10:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for writing on my wall page. Now that you've pointed the Kang article out to me I see what you're trying to do, and yes the X-Men did indeed debut in 63, but I still don't see how the way you're doing it is the best way. So I'm going to attempt some constructive criticism - hope that's OK!
I don't think initially reducing the article size by discarding over 50% of it is the best way of doing things. I think it's better to work with the article, going through it and improving what's already there instead of deleting large chunks of it in the name of POV, under the intention that you'll rewrite it later on.
In other words, what you're doing is deleting half the article, and then over the next few days rewriting it. I think it's better to, in each edit, rewrite a section, using what's already there as much as possible without lessening article quality. As otherwise, doing it your way, you leave the article in the lurch between the first and last edits, and also you might inadvertently delete something good in the mass deletion stage.
I hope you can see why I naively assumed that you were just deleting large chunks of articles, and I would still find it much more reassuring if you didn't do that, but instead improved articles the way I suggest.
One final thing. At articles like Secret Wars and Acts of Vengeance, you often are deleting the bibliography sections - now I don't know if there's some Wikipedia policy relating directly to that kind of section, but I for one find their inclusion a very useful reference, so I would appreciate it if you don't do that.
If you have anything more you want to say, please write again - rst20xx 16:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
No problem. I'll slow the edits down on the articles that need major work as I take your point. The end result is something I'm usually proud of - a la Thanos, Kang and most recently Hawkeye - as the articles are often woeful prior to a revamp. It's not that they are bad on account of poor editing, it is just that folks haven't read the early books. My goal with these articles is to have all the early history so down pat that all that may be needed is a minor punctuation etc edit. That, by the by, is not ownership of the article - it's just about getting it right and then letting it stand for all to read.

Regards.

Asgardian (talk) 10:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Superman-Fortomorrow.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Superman-Fortomorrow.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 08:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Explanation

OK. Read your comments. I suppose the first thing I should say re: your points is don't get stuck on article size. How large an article is can be meaningless, as there are (unfortunately) many articles out there that are huge by Wiki-standards and say very little. A number of comic articles fall into this category - well-intentioned fans write paragraph after paragraph of what is essentially blow-by-blow storytelling, usually loaded with POV. The information needs to be succinct and sourced if at all possible. Just the gist. That in real terms will mean a loss of data, but if it can be said in a simpler fashion, then so be it. An example is Quicksilver. Take a look at the colloquial sentences added to Powers and Abilities, or the unnecessary summary in the Ultimate section (the focus should be Pietro, not Wanda. The image is also wrong as it should be a "stock" shot of UQ doing his thing, a la the Ultimate Hawkeye addition).

As for the other articles, you seem most concerned about the mini-series so we should start there. Contest of Champions has been worked out between JGreb and I, and is still in reduced form as, frankly, that's all it needed. A huge list of players (lists are frowned on - apparently not outlawed but still very lazy editing) that only feature in a cameo appearance is unnecessary. What we have now is a tight, sourced piece on Marvel's first limited series. As for Secret Wars, we again see the same problem. Copious lists, text full of POV - such as the Crisis analogy which is all speculation - and unsourced trivia about action figures, which amounts to personal research, another no-no. We have now is a tight PH with a quote and a succinct summary that cites and sources the significant developments. If you really want the tie-in info, then I see no real issue with that (just needs a light clean-up).

I hope this helps.

Asgardian (talk) 05:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Alright well, as I said, I don't have time to deal with this myself so we'll see what others say/do over at WP:Comics. But I will add the tie-in info back. And I will just say that, instead of deleting things as "original research" (such as the toy stuff), don't you think it's better to put "citation needed" tags up instead?!? It's what most people would do. Oh, and I'm linking this from WP:Comics cos that's where this discussion should be. - rst20xx (talk) 18:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Well I see you tidied up the list of tie-ins, reducing the range of issues to just the ones in which the characters in question leave/depart, as opposed to before where if for example they left in part 3 of a story, then the first issue listed as a tie-in would be part 1. I don't really see what purpose this serves AT ALL, but I can't be bothered to fight you on this - rst20xx (talk) 17:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cecil Rhodes

You've classified it as a "minor" change, but in my biassed opinion, it's quite an improvement.
The () in "Rhodesia (later Northern and Southern Rhodesia) eventually became Zambia and Zimbabwe respectively." imply that the sentence can also be read "Rhodesia eventually became Zambia and Zimbabwe respectively.", which leaves the "respectively" orphaned.
Turning them into commas solves that problem. Good edit! Pdfpdf (talk) 13:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I was applying the exact same logic - rst20xx (talk) 03:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reorganization

This is a response to the following:

To be honest with you, I think all these shows/hides you've been adding to templates are much more annoying than useful. Yes, they look snazzy, and yes they decrease the amount of page space the templates take up, but they significantly increase (more than double) the file sizes, which is a bigger problem for people on slow computers than page size, and I think from a practical point of view the shows/hides are more of a hindrance than a help. Care for a rethink? - rst20xx (talk) 21:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I reorganized the templates following reorganizations of templates like {{socialism}}, {{anarchism}} and {{communism}}. The reason for this is that smaller templates are preferable for two reasons
    1. Having a large template can lead to strange lay outs on the screens, especially if articles have multiple large templates, it can become very messy
    2. Large templates can be pretty strange on small articles, when half the page is white, because the template continues but the text does not
Making templates expandedable with the "show" button deals with these issues quite nicely.
I actually own a crappy computer, I think this is preferable.
- C mon (talk) 07:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
And yet, if you go to Template:Politics of Norway, you find a show/hide round the "Constitution" section, despite this section containing one link, making the show/hide completely redundant and in fact annoying. Usability as a priority, my ass... rst20xx (talk) 16:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] William the Conqueror

I reverted you here, because it is quite true that he was called 'the Bastard' ~ true and descriptive. Also, generally giving a date for the start of a reign implies that it ends with death, if no end date is given. Cheers, Lindsay 15:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Err, well: 1. Regarding death, if you see Augustus, it says "to his death", and that's a featured article so it must have been copy-edited, with this way of phrasing things being deemed acceptable. So really it doesn't matter, but fair enough. 2. I took out William the Bastard because it talks about that name lower down the introduction, along with a bit more detail, so I thought it was redundant also having it at the top. 3. I made more changes than the above, I made two other small changes which you've now inadvertently reverted.
So I'm going to restore my edit (tis easiest), if you want to remove "to his death" and reinstate "William the Bastard" at the top then fair enough but don't do it by reverting please - rst20xx (talk) 16:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Yup, my bad, i'm sorry. I've bumped into vandals taking out the 'bastard' often enough that i reverted reflexively. Bad Lindsay. As for the other, that's a style thing, and we'll just agree to differ.... Cheers, Lindsay 23:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
That's OK! I only reverted straight because it was easiest for me. But then I suppose I've taken more time explaining my reverting straight than it would have taken to not revert straight... rst20xx (talk) 23:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Award

Hey Rst20xx!
Congratulations on finding the page that does not exist. Here is your reward; you've earned it.

The Hidden Link Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to rst20xx for finding the super secret hidden link on Selfworm's page!
Good job!

Congrats! selfwormTalk) 01:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Wooo! - rst20xx (talk) 12:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Roman Emperors template

Okay, I read your reasons for reverting my change to the template. First, regarding dates, I figured that others would correct the dates as needed. As for overlapping reigns, I didn't know that there were overlapping reigns throughout the empire's history (obviously not counting after the permanent split after Theodosius I). Finally, I know what it did to the size of the template. I was hoping that someone who knows how to do this would come along and split that list into several columns.—The President of Cool (talk) 18:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, well regarding the Emperor date bit, what I was saying is more that NO-ONE knows the correct dates. But anyway... that template is huge as it is, and so I think adding any more information is a bad idea - rst20xx (talk) 19:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Muppets

What's up with the {{muppets}} template you added to IBM? I don't know that it's appropriate to link non-foundation wikis. Maybe I'm missing something? /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Are there rules about that sort of thing? In which case, why does the template exist in the first place? It's just that I saw Jimmy Wales give a speech a couple of days ago, and he pointed to the fact that the Muppet Wiki had an article about IBM, so this inspired me to link it - rst20xx (talk) 10:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)