130.182.29.28 (talk) →Allusion to Buridan's ass: Restore my original hat note. IP criticizes another editor for hatting when involved, then does the same thing. Can't have it both ways. |
2607:fcc8:b886:7200:a010:11bf:b579:520a (talk) Revert Drmargi's re-hatting. If you're not going to contribute, please don't hamper those who are attempting to discuss. I started the discussion, at your request, I ended it. No problems. |
||
Line 77: | Line 77: | ||
{{OD}} |
{{OD}} |
||
{{hat|My question about policy will never be answered, so let's all just move on.}} |
|||
{{hat|An article talk page is not the place to discuss editor conduct. This is not improving the article, and IP who never edited here before this week trying to play teacher..}} |
|||
This discussion is hilarious, and a perfect example of why Wikipedia drives away editors. You have an editor with a clean block record and almost five thousand edits who is trying to add content to the page, and three other editors who just revert him to the point of 3RR, and then slap a template on his page to warn him like some newbie vandal. If protecting the article to your preferred state is so important, one of you should have gone to his talk page and explained why his edit was being reverted so he'd understand. Teach, don't template. |
This discussion is hilarious, and a perfect example of why Wikipedia drives away editors. You have an editor with a clean block record and almost five thousand edits who is trying to add content to the page, and three other editors who just revert him to the point of 3RR, and then slap a template on his page to warn him like some newbie vandal. If protecting the article to your preferred state is so important, one of you should have gone to his talk page and explained why his edit was being reverted so he'd understand. Teach, don't template. |
||
Revision as of 23:47, 4 June 2014
Television: Episode coverage Start‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||||||
|
Minnesota Start‑class | ||||||||||
|
International broadcast
It also premiered on Channel 4 in the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:5F00:AB:34:7C2C:6768:222D:9756 (talk) 23:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
It also premiered in Israel on HOT3 at April 19th, see reference: http://www.midnighteast.com/mag/?p=29189 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.179.136 (talk) 12:27, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- Added. Next time, feel free to register and do it yourself. — Wyliepedia 03:01, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
when is it set- do we know exactly?
& when we find out let's include that info in the article. kthx. skakEL 18:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- It's set in 2006 per the opening text at the beginning of each episode. Drovethrughosts (talk) 19:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- ...which is mentioned here under "Series premise". — Wyliepedia 21:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
True story?
At the beginning of the TV series they say the story is based on true events. They continue to say they follow the events exactly despite name changes to protect the dead and the victims. Can anyone include more information on this in the article? Does it accurately follow the true story? How about a link from the article to the true account of the events? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colinheacock (talk • contribs) 19:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- It's based on the film, which has the same opening text. You can look here: Fargo (film)#Factual basis. Drovethrughosts (talk) 20:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/10792814/The-truth-behind-Fargos-true-story.html Colinheacock (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Colinheacock: Congratulations, you found a source. Now, feel free to be bold and add the info yourself. — Wyliepedia 20:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Allusion to Buridan's ass
In this edit, I added prose to the episode "Buridan's Ass", linking to Buridan's ass, with a reliably-sourced citation.
My edit was reverted by @CAWylie: with the edit summary: "Most titles are from parables, which is WP:TRIVIA. Create episode articles for this."
I restored my edit, with the edit summary: "Episode articles haven't yet been created. This allusion is not that well-known & exists in WP. How would it be trivia here, but not in a standalone?"
CAWylie neither replied to my question nor re-reverted, but @Drmargi: did re-revert, with the edit summary: "we don't add trivia to the edit summary box".
As this response made no sense to me, I again restored: "The added content isn't part of the edit summary." (If Drmargi had meant that "trivia" was not permitted in the "ShortSummary" parameter, which is part of the episode template, she did not provide any support for that contention.)
Drmargi neither replied nor re-reverted, but @Drovethrughosts: did re-revert: "per the other reverts. maybe a separate section devoted to the episode title allusions w/ notable refs?"
I was just about to start a discussion on this talk page, but I immediately found that Drmargi had left, IMHO, an uncivil and threatening Edit war message on my user talk page. Her message reminded me that three reverts w/i 24 hours would be charged against me, ignoring the fact that three separate editors were ganging up and reverting my edits and thus would only be charged with one revert each. And of course she added that three reverts were not required to block me. She then ended, again IMHO, most condescendingly: "You've now been reverted by three editors. That should tell you that the content is inappropriate where you've placed it. The last editor made a good suggestion regarding title allusions. You might want to pay attention to it rather than continuing to edit war. Moreover, please discuss on the talk page, not via edit summary; see WP:BRD". She ignored the fact that the three editors in question had all replied via edit summary as well, and up until the rather nasty Edit war notice, only Drovethrughosts had actually made a constructive, responsive comment.
So I again would like to know:
- Since episode articles have not yet been created for this show (and who is to say that this program will last enough seasons to necessitate episodes being broken out), why should I bear the responsibility of creating episode article(s) just to add one small bit of episode-related prose?
- How is an allusion to some other work considered "trivia" in a summary article, but acceptable in a break-out? I had been looking at Lost, where a cursory examination of the first season episodes reveals that a number of the titles are allusions, which are discussed in article prose.
- Would it be acceptable to put title allusions in a separate section in the summary article? Possibly, but IMO this unnecessarily interrupts the reader's flow. For guidance, I turned to MOS/Television#Episode listing. The MOS directs you to model articles on the "list of featured episode lists". Not only is the aforementioned Lost there, but so is Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 1). What is listed right there, inline, in Degrassi? "TRIVIA"!... "Note: This is the 100th episode in the Degrassi franchise." So if prose like that is included in a Featured article, why not a title allusion?
- It was suggested that the title allusions should have "notable" refs. First, the concept of "notable" only refers to the existence of articles, not the content therein. Second, Vulture.com, which I cited, has been held to be a Reliable Source, per the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.
Obviously, if Fargo episodes are ever broken out into standalone articles, any allusion prose would move into the standalones. The proposed state of affairs is just a placeholding measure to last until and if standalones are created. IMO, inline prose, as per the Note at Degrassi, would be much more readable, and by being a direct part of the episode prose, will move with it much more cleanly when a standalone is created. --Chaswmsday (talk) 22:00, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- Firstly, "other stuff exists" will never get you far in discussions. Secondly, "three separate editors were ganging up and reverting my edits and thus would only be charged with one revert each" is completely untrue and unproven and the most offensive thing I've read today. Finally, as stated elsewhere, edit summaries are no place for discussions, certainly not to get a point across by re-reverting. — Wyliepedia 01:14, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- Except that my argument was specifically NOT "other stuff exists". It was that the MOS specifically defers to a list of Featured lists to model episode list tables; one of the first featured lists I looked at included what most people would consider much more "trivial" than the bit of prose I had added.
- I'm sorry you're offended, but collusion or not, from my perspective, it's a distinction without a difference.
- Also, I didn't know you from a troll; that's why I restored from your revert without a lengthy talk page discussion.
- As to your earliest point about parables - which I hadn't yet explored since I had just intended a single, drive-by edit: I have subsequently located a probably non-reliable link discussing all of Fargo's as-yet-aired episode titles. All the more reason, IMO, to memorialize these allusions inline. --Chaswmsday (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Merciful heavens. Could you possibly at least try to assume good faith? Ganging up on you? Hardly -- that implies we somehow worked together, but to what end? Rather, why not entertain the idea that a bit of trivia about the origin of a title is not part of an episode summary doesn't belong in a table cell designed to hold the episode summary? You're taking this far too personally and allowing it to color how you see the actions and motives of others. Moreover, the body of the text of the warning I posted on your talk page is templated. Template has a talk page; if you find it offensive, you should address that issue there. The remainder of what I posted, which you quoted above, are neither condescending nor uncivil. They were a simple statement of fact: when three unrelated editors revert your edit in close succession, each providing an explanatory edit summary, you should get the message -- your edit goes somewhere else. No one voiced any opinion as to whether your edit was suitable presented in a different way; in fact, one editor made a suggestion that there might be a way to get it in. Rather, we simply said, each of us, that the edit summary cell of the episode table was not the appropriate location for information about the title, linked or not. --Drmargi (talk) 05:07, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- OK, I concede that the first part of your 3RR post to my Talk page matches the template.
- But, following up on my latest response to Wylie, the rapidity of reverts seemed to me indicative of collusion or at least of group-think. I've unfortunately run across many editors who slavishly follow excessively legalistic interpretations of WP guidance. But here, I don't even find appeals to legalisms, just plain IDONTLIKEITs.
- The TRIVIA section cited actually refers to Trivia sections within articles; besides, Wylie somehow holds this "trivia" to be non-trivial in standalone articles??
- Your first response advised that I shouldn't place trivia in an edit summary; perhaps you should not revert so hastily when you haven't exercised enough care in correctly explaining the rationale behind the revert.
- Your 3RR arrived before I had the opportunity to even read Drovethrughosts' much more helpful response. At that point, all I had to go by were odd, unclear responses vaguely referring to "trivia = BAD" - not so-called "explanatory edit summaries" - so I responded accordingly, in the edit summaries.
- It is hypocritical to scold me for commenting in edit summaries, when all three of you did the same.
- I still find the last part of your 3RR post and part of your most recent post here to be condescending. The notion that "might makes right". "That should tell you". "You should get the message". That's not what I would consider a civil, collaborative tone. Perhaps we were raised differently.
- If such allusions are appropriate for inclusion, then the guidance provided by MOS serves to support the placement of my original edit. Perhaps if a RS is found and the pattern holds, a statement to the effect of "All episodes are named for parables, koans or paradoxes" should be added to the body, with the actual allusions better integrated into the episode summaries, instead of a separate "note" or in your suggested, (IMO, much less preferable) non-integral section.
- Again, this would only be the case until episodes are broken into standalones, as has already been done with S1E1. So I'm not sure why it's such a big deal that I would prefer memorializing these allusions in a particular manner in the meantime. --Chaswmsday (talk) 16:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- I've been contributing to this page since February 2014, wrote most of the episode summaries, have done 18% (58) of the edits to the page and you "didn't know me from a troll"??? — Wyliepedia 17:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yup. I'm not sure I had even looked at this page before. I watched the "Buridan's Ass" episode and wasn't familiar with the reference, so I checked on WP. (After reading the paradox article, it did seem vaguely familiar). Then, as I said, I intended a single, drive-by edit, not expecting a revert of something I saw as entirely non-controversial. But here we are. --Chaswmsday (talk) 17:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- I was struck by the same thing, Wylie. Even the most cursory glance at the page history or the talk page would have shown Chaswmday that you were anything but a troll. First I'm accused of incivility following a failure to exercise simple diligence, then you are called a troll after the same. Again, Chas, how about assuming some good faith? Thus far, I see none in your responses. You seem to be determined to deflect all of this back on us, cast us as the bad-guys and yourself as the aggrieved party, while assuming completely bad faith on our part. Then you take me to task for being uncivil while throwing a back-handed insult regarding my upbringing -- an undeniably rude comment. This leaves me wondering if you have too thin a skin to edit on Wikipedia. You're taking it all far too personally. Meanwhile, you've got this trivia thing all tied up in knots and are completely overlooking the solution presented by another editor. I'm happy to continue this discussion once you're ready to get to work on the problem, but I'm not interested in any further analysis of my motives or my character. --Drmargi (talk) 18:50, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- You got it. I've found your continuing air of smug superiority so egregious, especially as it was, IMO, entirely unjustified, based on the sloppy, non-responsive rationale you (didn't) supply - and only supplied after you were called on it. So yes, I stooped to your level - the back-handed insult was not accidental. And I didn't call Wylie a "troll", and I'm not just playing cutesy semantics. After being on WP for so long, I've run across few actual trolls, e.g. one editor who disrupted an entire project, then finally admitted it was all just a game. But there is behavior which I consider troll-ish. Namely, editors who revert, delete or disrupt while providing little or no cogent rationales for doing so. It usually turns out that there exists some cabal, seemingly of one mind, which assumes that all other editors are fully versed in their own idiosyncratically legalistic interpretation of some bit of WP guidance. So I was hoping for a troll who would get bored and go bother someone else, but almost certain that it was probably the first strike by a cabal. Although not a legalistic one, just an IDONTLIKEIT one.
- Why am I seemingly burning bridges here? Because I've found over the years that no amount of reasonable arguments or clear guidance or Featured articles doing substantially the same thing as I'm trying to do will ever stay you from your appointed rounds. We're right, you're wrong. That's that. We'll make life utter hell if you dare defy us. "I'll be happy to continue the conversation" means "Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated."
- I dare you to actually ponder my arguments, cited guidance and examples and prove that you can actually admit that there are other valid ways to accomplish the goal of improving WP. I don't believe you're "bad", just, like countless others on WP, having no brakes when it comes to enforcing your particular agenda/interpretation/likes. If that is indeed the case, then I am the aggrieved party here. --Chaswmsday (talk) 19:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- I was struck by the same thing, Wylie. Even the most cursory glance at the page history or the talk page would have shown Chaswmday that you were anything but a troll. First I'm accused of incivility following a failure to exercise simple diligence, then you are called a troll after the same. Again, Chas, how about assuming some good faith? Thus far, I see none in your responses. You seem to be determined to deflect all of this back on us, cast us as the bad-guys and yourself as the aggrieved party, while assuming completely bad faith on our part. Then you take me to task for being uncivil while throwing a back-handed insult regarding my upbringing -- an undeniably rude comment. This leaves me wondering if you have too thin a skin to edit on Wikipedia. You're taking it all far too personally. Meanwhile, you've got this trivia thing all tied up in knots and are completely overlooking the solution presented by another editor. I'm happy to continue this discussion once you're ready to get to work on the problem, but I'm not interested in any further analysis of my motives or my character. --Drmargi (talk) 18:50, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yup. I'm not sure I had even looked at this page before. I watched the "Buridan's Ass" episode and wasn't familiar with the reference, so I checked on WP. (After reading the paradox article, it did seem vaguely familiar). Then, as I said, I intended a single, drive-by edit, not expecting a revert of something I saw as entirely non-controversial. But here we are. --Chaswmsday (talk) 17:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- I've been contributing to this page since February 2014, wrote most of the episode summaries, have done 18% (58) of the edits to the page and you "didn't know me from a troll"??? — Wyliepedia 17:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
My question about policy will never be answered, so let's all just move on. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This discussion is hilarious, and a perfect example of why Wikipedia drives away editors. You have an editor with a clean block record and almost five thousand edits who is trying to add content to the page, and three other editors who just revert him to the point of 3RR, and then slap a template on his page to warn him like some newbie vandal. If protecting the article to your preferred state is so important, one of you should have gone to his talk page and explained why his edit was being reverted so he'd understand. Teach, don't template. And yes, he should have opened a discussion on the talk page, certainly. But it would have been far more friendly and professional of one of you to begin some kind of discussion somewhere to try and explain things to a productive editor. Obviously just explaining things in an edit summary wasn't working, the next step should have been explaining before blocking, but no one is interested in talking. Nobody's being helpful here. This talk page is just a shrine to passive-aggressiveness. 2607:FCC8:B886:7200:A010:11BF:B579:520A (talk) 16:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't look like Drmargi or CAWylie actually had any kind of policy-based reasons for their reversions above, as both editors have refused to discuss this matter here, or on their own talk pages. I doubt we'll actually get any actual answers based in policy here. It's obvious it was just a case of blind piling-on an editor who was trying to help, which is the kind of thing that drives away good faith productive editors. Wikipedia has a reputation for that, and it's sad to see such a perfect example of it in a situation that should have been handled in a more civil, collaborative manner. If any of the other editors on this page actually have a link to a policy that prohibits what Chaswmsday was trying to do, please post it because I'd still love to see it. It would clear up a lot of things. 2607:FCC8:B886:7200:A010:11BF:B579:520A (talk) 19:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
|
- You might care to look at the instructions for {{Episode list}}, specifically the instructions for the
ShortSummary
field which say that the field is supposed to contain "a short 100–200 word summary of the episode". Since the content that Chaswmsday added was not part of the plot, it doesn't belong in the field. Most TV series include episode titles that are allusions to one thing or another; it's nothing out of the ordinary and constitutes non-notable trivia. We try to avoid adding non-notable trivia anywhere on Wikipedia and so it should not be included here. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC)- AussieLegend, thank you so much for the link. I really appreciate you posting that here, and I understand what you're saying. I agree with your point, although I will disagree on referring to the title allusions as non-notable trivia. Wikipedia does have a problem with editors adding trivia to articles, but the titles are purposefully written allusions. I agree with linking them on the individual episode pages. Not here, though, after reading your post, I get that. Thanks for taking the time to post that. Thanks! 2607:FCC8:B886:7200:A010:11BF:B579:520A (talk) 21:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)