User talk:Showers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] December 2007

One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view A contribution you made to InuYasha appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. My edit removed only one actual real note, calling the Tetsaiga spelling in the dub "incorrect." A source needs to be provided otherwise its just original research. Collectonian (talk) 03:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Readding the footnotes is not vandalism. You know that. If you have a problem with them you can bring it up in the talk page. As for sourcing, you are right about that. However, almost the entire article is unsourced and we haven't deleted almost the entirety of the article. If you want to improve the article then I suggest adding some sources. Showers (talk) 04:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
There was no reason to readd them like that. One was incorporated into the article text properly, one was removed (the Sit/Sit Boy seemed excessive but I put it into the article text where it belongs), and the final note was unsourced but also seemed to be NPOV/OR and shouldn't be in the article without sourcing. Calling a professional company's spelling/translation incorrect requires an actual source, hence my removing that all together. Collectonian (talk) 04:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I agreed with user:88wolfmaster that the notes shouldn't have been removed. Having notes is not against wikipedia policy and if you want to change the style of the article then you should discuss it in the article's talk page first. Having been reverted twice by different editors should have been your first clue. Showers (talk) 05:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Not really. Reverts from two editors who do not have a broad range of editing experience does not tell me anything except that both are fairly new and don't understand the edit. So I tried to explain in my summary. However, I've also long since learned that editors in the anime/manga articles tend to have ignore basic Wikipedia style guides, guidelines, and policies because of their love for the show. That was a minor change to bring the article more inline with MOS. Pre-discussion is not required for simple and necessary clean up. Footnotes are not against policy, but they should also only be used if necessary, much like See Also, as a place to hold stuff until it is incorporated into the article. I incorporated was needed to be incorporated, and dumped the bad item. That is in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Collectonian (talk) 05:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Being reverted repeatedy by different editors makes it a point of discussion since you kept doing it anyway. The Notes do not violate wikipedia policy. Your incorporations do not improve the quality of the article in any way and in fact detract from it in my opinion. The notes provide a neat way of expanding on the specific portions of the text they are attached to. Showers (talk) 05:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
The notes are a detraction. If its notable, it is easily incorporated into the text (as I have done), and readers no longer have to hunt down the footnote to see what was important. They may not violate policy, but that doesn't make them a good idea or appropriate in this context. If the text needs expanding, expand the text. Footnotes are not for side remarks and commentary, or to hide OR. Collectonian (talk) 05:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
You did incorporate them. Poorly. The Kirara pronunciation for example should be there as a note. That section should be a simple summary of the character and its role in inuyasha. Not have half the section taken up on how her name should be pronounced. Same concept for the sit boy bit. They are side remarks and they should stay that way. Like I said, if you dont like it, take it up in the talk page. Perhaps consensus will be reached. Please remember that you are not the sole authority of the Inuyasha article and that Wikipedia is a collabrotive work. Showers (talk) 05:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmm...by your own statement, you are right, they should be a simply summary. In truth, both of those notes are more appropriate on the List of characters article and not on the main page at all. *shrug* The article is in such bad shape as it is, I guess it doesn't really matter anyway. Collectonian (talk) 06:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
You're right. Showers (talk) 06:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minnesota

Thanks for the comment. We probably need a better phrase. I moved the discussion to Talk:Minnesota#Minnesota_Demograpics. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 12:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request input, assistance as possible

Showers, I wanted to ask for your thoughts and possible assistance in touching up and expanding the page Wikipedia:Other Stuff Exists. Based on your comments in some articles or deletion discussions in which we have both been a part, I believe that you may have a similar viewpoint and be better at explaining the purpose of the page, which is Precedent as it applies to Wikipedia. The essay is in its early form and needs continued expansion (with solid examples). If and when you have a few moments, please take a look at it and let us know what you think or help to build the page up more. Many Thanks! VigilancePrime (talk) 22:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC) :-)

[edit] Burnsville

Your flair for intepretation of Wikipedia rules never ceases to amaze me. But I'm here for the Burnsville page again, could I ask kindly that you stop linking redlinks to your seemingly favorite notable baseball players. I already established far back in your edit war that I'll leave the notables in there but don't link them until they have a page. And while you're at it, if they are so notable, I suggest you create a Wiki-page for them. .:DavuMaya:. 20:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I added them to encourage others to create articles for the people who are listed as notable in the article. In fact, I believe they don't meet WP:NOTE guidelines and should be removed. However I was reverted by Davidjstang and Shrimpoj so I deferred and decided to leave it as is, if they are notable then articles should be created. Showers (talk) 20:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)