MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) m Robot: Archiving 28 threads (older than 30d) to Talk:Bond girl/Archive 5. |
+ |
||
Line 70: | Line 70: | ||
::I concur with SchroCat and Betty Logan. SchroCat is not edit warring. SchroCat has made no personal attacks. There is a consensus decision to use d-m-y dates, not only among the three of us, but among all the senior Bond editors and there are many of us. YYYY-MM-DD format is open to potential misinterpretation, i.e. 2012-03-08 March 8 or August 3? I strongly believe we must achieve consistency. Further with so much work done on these articles it makes much sense to avoid ambiguity. - [[User:Fanthrillers|Fanthrillers]] ([[User talk:Fanthrillers|talk]]) 21:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC) |
::I concur with SchroCat and Betty Logan. SchroCat is not edit warring. SchroCat has made no personal attacks. There is a consensus decision to use d-m-y dates, not only among the three of us, but among all the senior Bond editors and there are many of us. YYYY-MM-DD format is open to potential misinterpretation, i.e. 2012-03-08 March 8 or August 3? I strongly believe we must achieve consistency. Further with so much work done on these articles it makes much sense to avoid ambiguity. - [[User:Fanthrillers|Fanthrillers]] ([[User talk:Fanthrillers|talk]]) 21:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC) |
||
::: The access date format was mostly in yyyy-mm-dd when I noticed your edit. I made the access dates consistent. None of you cared about the fomat here before that point, despite your prior edits to the article. You all have misunderstood the guidelines and refuse to correct your actions once informed - by an editor who wrote parts of that guideline. An agreement of misinformed editors is not a consensus. [[User:Gimmetoo|Gimmetoo]] ([[User talk:Gimmetoo|talk]]) 15:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:40, 5 January 2013
Template:Outline of knowledge coverage
James Bond B‑class (inactive) | |||||||
|
Film: American Start‑class | ||||||||||
|
Fictional characters List‑class | |||||||
|
Women's History C‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Index
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Nationality
I've noticed a number of the actresses listed have dual nationality listed next to their names (French/Eurasian for Maryse Mitsouko; Fiona Fullerton listed as Nigerian/British). Apart from those that make no sense at all (Eurasian isn't a nationality, it's an ethnic type), others are just plain wrong - Fullerton isn't Nigerian, she just happened to be born there because her parents were living there. Would anyone object if these were corrected to show a single nationality, where applicable? - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I would like to add that Honor Blackman is listed as English rather than British. English isn't a nationality (but rather a language). UK citizens are usually listed as British by nationality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.34.160 (talk) 12:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Bond girl without any love
Why Maryse Mitsouko is listed as bond Girl in thunderball ? James Bond never love her.
Honey Ryder links
I know it may be too complicated for you but please try to understand that no page called Honey Ryder exists. Honey Ryder links to a disambiguation page which disambiguates to Honey Ryder (band) and Honey Ryder (Bond girl). The latter, in turn, links here. So this is a redundant self-link. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 08:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Don't be so fecking patronising. I re-instated the Honey Ryder article this morning, as someone had re-directed it without cause and without discussion. So it's not a self-link, it links to the article. - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Added Eve Moneypenny in
Added Eve Moneypenny in for Skyfall. Was going to add sources but wasn't sure if any of these are acceptable or good enough. But what do you think? Here are the sources... [1] [2] [3] [4]
Dates
Please note that there is a {{Use dmy dates|date=March 2012}} tag on the top of the article, which shows that as this is the British date format is in use here. this is consistent with the BrEnglish in use on the page, as it is a UK dominated topic. Please also note that if you have three people saying one thing (as on my talk page thread) and you are saying the opposite, do you not think that you may want to think through your position first, just in case the others may have a point? - SchroCat (talk) 06:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- This has already been discussed on User:Shrodinger's talk page, where User:Shrodinger was informed of the relevant guidelines. As a consequence, User:Shrodinger is explicitly edit warring contrary to guidelines after warning. Gimmetoo (talk) 06:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
It's not "contrary to the appropriate guidelines" and I'm not edit warring, so can you at least try to start off a conversation being WP:CIVIL? The guidelines contain a degree of flexibility, but having a US date format in a UK-centred article, when all other dates are in the long format, and the tag on the top of the page indicates the format to be used, does tend to suggest that the YYYY-MM-DD format is less desirable than the alternatives. - SchroCat (talk) 06:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- You were infomed of the guidelines, and were explicitly told why your interpretation is wrong. That you continued to change them in violation of thiose guidelines is very serious. You should revert your guideline violating edit immediately. The guideline explicitly authorizes the use of yyyy-mm-dd format, even in articles with strong national ties. Gimmetoo (talk) 06:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- As I've already pointed out above, the guidelines have a degree of flexibility, so neither my nor your interpretation is "wrong": they may be different, but with the inherent flexibility they are both correct. Please try and see that to start with. As I have also pointed out, there have been three editors who have pointed out to you that the long date format is entirely acceptable and, more importantly, appropriate for this article. I am not sure why—on you first edits on this article—you seem so intent on hammering on this one point rather than doing something constructive to the article. - SchroCat (talk) 06:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- No, you are wrong. See DATERET. While the long format is also acceptable, it's not how this article developed. The majority of access dates used yyyy-mm-dd formats. You have no justification for changing the article to a different format. The page was consistent in a format explicitly allowed, with yyyy-mm-dd for access dates. The guideline explicitly rules out "strongnat" as a reason for removing yyyy-mm-dd formats. As for your allegation of "constructive", recall that you undid my edits that included other fixes. You need to undo the edit you made in violation of guideline. Gimmetoo (talk) 06:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- As I've already pointed out above, the guidelines have a degree of flexibility, so neither my nor your interpretation is "wrong": they may be different, but with the inherent flexibility they are both correct. Please try and see that to start with. As I have also pointed out, there have been three editors who have pointed out to you that the long date format is entirely acceptable and, more importantly, appropriate for this article. I am not sure why—on you first edits on this article—you seem so intent on hammering on this one point rather than doing something constructive to the article. - SchroCat (talk) 06:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- You were infomed of the guidelines, and were explicitly told why your interpretation is wrong. That you continued to change them in violation of thiose guidelines is very serious. You should revert your guideline violating edit immediately. The guideline explicitly authorizes the use of yyyy-mm-dd format, even in articles with strong national ties. Gimmetoo (talk) 06:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
WP:DATERET does you no favours here: the DMY tag has been in place since last March and isn't a newly added thing and I am still not sure why your first edits on this page are hammering something fairly minor, something where either format is correct, but one where it is more appropriate to have a UK date format for a UK-centred article. Odd behaviour. - SchroCat (talk) 06:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- Wrong again. The DMY tag simply means DMY formats are used. It does not mean no other format may be used. yyyy-mm-dd is not a US format, and the guideline directly and unequivocally authorizes its use for access dates, as it was used here, consistently. DATERET says to retain the existing format. Gimmetoo (talk) 06:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Let's try again in simple words so that even an admin can understand this:
- There was no consistency previously (See the fns http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bond_girl&oldid=531076899 here (prior to the recent changes) and spot the differing formats)
- WP:DATERET does you no favours, it's something of a red herring in all this, as neither I nor Fanthrillers (talk · contribs) have altered the date format in the main article text, which is what DATERET refers to. By the way, the main text in the article is, was and ever shall be DMY under WP:TIES, which accounts for the {{Use dmy dates|date=March 2012}} tage since March 2012.
- The close relative of WP:TIES, WP:STRONGNAT points towards the article as a whole embracing DMY—as is the current case in the article—but allows some flexibility in the references format, where it says "YYYY-MM-DD format may be used in references". Please note that bit: "MAY". Not must, should, have to or need to, but may. In other words there is a degree of flexibility inherent in the guideline.
- To ensure that there is WP:CONSISTENCY within this article (and indeed within the various other Bond articles, which all use DMY frmat dates and BrEng), it is entirely appropriate to use the long number format within the references.
I am still not sure why you seek to go against the opinions of others in something that does not need to be a fight. I do not know why you feel the need (on my talk page) to throw around your admin status, or to edit war over something so small as dates in references, when there is enough inherent flexibility within the guidelines which means that either format is acceptable. - SchroCat (talk) 07:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- NPA warning. To address your points:
- Before the recent edits, there were at least two access dates in yyyy-mm-dd format, but only one access date in dmy, and one access date in a mm.dd.yyyy (not an allowed format). I fixed the not-allowed-format and reconciled them to the majority format, which was yyyy-mm-dd.
- Of course any allowed format is acceptable, but per DATERET, the format used predominantly for the access dates should have been retained for the access dates.
- Yes, yyyy-mm-dd *may* be used, which explicitly means that strongnat may not be used to remove yyyy-mm-dd formats. Likewise, dmy format may be used, not must, should, have to or need to.
- Consistency is consistency within articles. The format of the access dates in the article was consistent. Furthermore, Bond-related articles do not all use exclusively dmy format.
- I have no idea why you refuse to accept the guidelines, and chose to edit war even after being reminded of the guidelines, and to remove my other fixes to the article. Gimmetoo (talk) 07:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
As I have already said a few times, you can knock off the WP:UNCIVIL accusations of edit warring. You have shown intent to go against the consensus and revert the good faith and entirely correct edits of others based on your misinterpretation of guidelines. You have then thrown around the "I am an admin" tag (being very careful to leave the implied threat hanging while saying otherwise) while repeating your unfounded accusations of warring at others (even though you are have edit warred extensively, reverting to your preferred version three times without even bothering to stop by the talk page to start a discussion). I'll remind you that this is WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY and your actions are not helping to build the encyclopaedia: they are helping to drive away editors who are prepared to develop the article further and act as stewards. Furthermore, your misreading of the guidelines, interpreting them in a far-too narrow fashion, is not conducive to article development. I have no idea why you have decided to focus on the miniscule changes in this article when admin action is needed elsewhere: perhaps you need to get a little perspective of what the bigger picture is here? I have outlined the various policies above, including where you are misinterpreting them and I do not see any benefit in doing so again: you are obviously not reading or understanding them properly and are defining them far too narrowly for the good of the project overall. Just by way of an official reminder, you have reverted three times. I am sure you are aware of WP:3RR and I strongly advise that you do not try to revert again because I will have no hesitation in reporting your actions in the appropriate forum. - SchroCat (talk) 08:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC).
- The guideline expresses consensus, and it is you who have edited against consensus by not following the guideline. As I have explained multiple times, you have misunderstood the guidelines. If all you have to go on is "flexibility", then you must agree the the format may be changed to any acceptable format, at any time, by anyone, and hence you have no principle to maintain article stability. DATERET expresses that the date format should not be changed without strong reasons. The reasons you have given are out of order, as the guideline explicitly rules them out, so they are not strong reasons. Thus you have no reason to change the format. Gimmetoo (talk) 14:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment James Bond is a British literary creation, with a strong British flavor, and as such British English and the British date format are used on the James Bond articles. WP:STRONGNAT does permit the use of the YYYY-MM-DD format, even with strong national ties, but clearly expresses a preference for the British format in this case: Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that nation. The YYYY-MM-DD format would be appropriate on something like Wallis Simpson, who was an American citizen (and thus essentially an American topic), but where her notability comes entirely from British events. Betty Logan (talk) 10:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- I concur with SchroCat and Betty Logan. SchroCat is not edit warring. SchroCat has made no personal attacks. There is a consensus decision to use d-m-y dates, not only among the three of us, but among all the senior Bond editors and there are many of us. YYYY-MM-DD format is open to potential misinterpretation, i.e. 2012-03-08 March 8 or August 3? I strongly believe we must achieve consistency. Further with so much work done on these articles it makes much sense to avoid ambiguity. - Fanthrillers (talk) 21:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- The access date format was mostly in yyyy-mm-dd when I noticed your edit. I made the access dates consistent. None of you cared about the fomat here before that point, despite your prior edits to the article. You all have misunderstood the guidelines and refuse to correct your actions once informed - by an editor who wrote parts of that guideline. An agreement of misinformed editors is not a consensus. Gimmetoo (talk) 15:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- I concur with SchroCat and Betty Logan. SchroCat is not edit warring. SchroCat has made no personal attacks. There is a consensus decision to use d-m-y dates, not only among the three of us, but among all the senior Bond editors and there are many of us. YYYY-MM-DD format is open to potential misinterpretation, i.e. 2012-03-08 March 8 or August 3? I strongly believe we must achieve consistency. Further with so much work done on these articles it makes much sense to avoid ambiguity. - Fanthrillers (talk) 21:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)