Talk:Sci-Fi Dine-In Theater Restaurant

Article length
Why does this restaurant need such a big wikipedia page? 93.96.86.218 (talk) 22:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Reverted edits
Hi there, I'm not certain why my edits keep being undone, aside from a claim that they are connected with vandalism which I'm not a party to. I'm more than happy to help weed out vandalism on this page and will keep a watchful eye out as I continue to work. John Bailey Owen (talk) 22:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Hopefully people will take a general look at this
The creator of this page seems to have an alarming obsession with ensuring that no other person edits or improves this entry. Referring to legitimate edits as "vandalism" and using this as justification for protecting the page is frankly just sad. I'm sorry Neelix, but you are not and never will be the sole arbiter of what the world knows about the Sci-Fi Dine-In Theater Restaurant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.90.116 (talk) 21:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Introduction
I've read and understand the Manual of Style. As it stands, the introduction:

- does not provide an accessible overview

- does not have an acceptable degree of relative emphasis

- is overly redundant (in multiple instances, text is repeated verbatim later on)

Please allow my edits to stand. In your own talk page you state that the first reason you spend more time editing wikipedia than contributing to academia is that you enjoy the collaborative nature of editing, and the way in which articles have several authors. However, you are the creator and sole contributor to this article, and you are reverting my edits without cause. John Bailey Owen (talk) 22:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Your editing pattern indicates that you are likely to be using multiple accounts to edit this article. You had not edited Wikipedia nearly at all until you started removing content from this article. You initially spent several hours removing much valid content from the article, all while leaving much clearly inappropriate content in the article that was placed there by IP addresses and new accounts interspersed between your edits. I do not have reason to believe that your edits are an attempt to improve the quality of this article. Neelix (talk) 23:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Kneelicks, you mention on your user page that Wikipedia is more valuable than traditional academic work because its highest quality articles rely on the contribution of at least 3 contributors. Yet, you seem hesitant to let anyone other than yourself work on improving this article. How do you reconcile these stated beliefs and your clearly contradictory actions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.190.98 (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * In re: Neelix's statement above - all of my edits have come from a single device, as I assume you can see. I was focused on my own edits during the hours spent editing that you mention, but I will be vigilant about deleting vandalism going forward. The fact that I've edited sparingly until now doesn't really have any bearing on the issues you bring up and makes none of your accusations more or less likely, and certainly provides no evidence for them. I assure you that my edits are an attempt to improve the quality of the article, and think there is a very good reason to believe that: they have been making this article more concise and less repetitious while keeping its most important points and ideas intact. John Bailey Owen (talk) 23:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Directly repeated information in the lead and body
Please stop undoing my edits of the lead and rest of the article wholesale. There are a number of directly repeated phrases in the lead - text that appears verbatim later on in the article. There is no reason the same text should be repeated multiple times. John Bailey Owen (talk) 18:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * John, I notice that you haven't edited Wikipedia since January, so I'm not sure if you will receive this message. I am willing to assume your good faith in this matter, and I hope that we now follow the bold, revert, discuss cycle by discussing this article before any further changes are implemented to it; I have not edited this article since we conflicted about it in January. According to the Manual of Style guidelines on lead sections, a lead section should "summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight." Without the content that you have removed from the lead of this article, the lead is now unbalanced in weight and does not summarize the body sufficiently. Nothing in the guidelines suggests that a sentence that appears in the body should not also appear in the lead. Instead, this practice is often encouraged, so that the lead is an accurate representation of the body. You can see examples of this practice in Wikipedia's featured articles. Given this information, would you be willing for me to restore the removed content to the lead? Neelix (talk) 17:29, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey, Neelix. While I agree that the lead is encouraged to be an accurate representation of the body. I don't believe that phrases repeated verbatim are encouraged. I think that is sensible and that lack of repetition is a hallmark of good, readable writing everywhere. My opinion is that the removed content should not be restored, though rewritten content based on that information would be fine. John Bailey Owen (talk) 02:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I have re-added the information in altered form. I hope the change meets with your approval. If there are other elements of the article you would like to discuss, please let me know. Neelix (talk) 15:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Copy edit completed
Thank you for copy-editing this article, Nicholas! I have a few concerns with regards to the changes you made to the article. I made some minor changes which you can see in the article's edit history, but I have not acted on three of the more significant ones because I wanted to discuss them with you:

You removed more than half of the lead of the article with the edit summary, "reduced intro by removing detailed redundant info found properly later in article". Apart from discussions of this article specifically, I have never heard of information being provided both in the lead and in the body of a Wikipedia article as being in any way problematic. My understanding is that leads are by their very nature intended to summarize the body of the article, and should therefore repeat information from each of the other sections of the article. My understanding of what the lead should look like is derived from Wikipedia's guidelines on lead sections and from the lead sections of Wikipedia's featured articles. I feel that the current lead of this article is woefully inadequate in summarizing the contents of this article and quite divergent from the leads of featured articles. Would you be willing for me to restore the content that was removed from the lead?
 * This one I have an opinion on. The critical words, in my edit summary, which you quoted, are found properly. A side by side comparison, shows that no concepts or ideas were removed from the content of the introduction. Each paragraph in the original, as I found it, has its main idea retained. I merely removed supporting details, that I am firmly convinced belong in the body of the article, and indeed the details I removed were in the body as I found it, before my edits.

Per WP:AND, the new section heading "Theme and atmosphere" seems redundant to me. Would you mind if we shortened the phrase to one word or the other?
 * I have no objection to renaming this section. I named it from a phrase in the original that I was editing. I will try renaming it.

As far as I can tell from the sources, there was no controversy surrounding the incident with Creuzer; this was simply an event in the history of the restaurant. I don't see any reason to keep it separate from the "History" section. What are your thoughts?
 * Again I do not care one way or the other. Rename it, or remove its section head. I almost removed it altogether, as it seems to me that it has nothing to do with the restaurant. Are Wikipedia articles supposed to be police blotter sheets for each restaurant? I think not. So I will change it.

I hope that we can come to a mutually satisfactory conclusion on the items above. Thank you again for engaging with this article. Neelix (talk) 23:36, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Finally I note that you are one of the 250 most active editors. I have been editing on a almost daily basis for nine years, and just recently finished my 5,000th edit. So while I might not be in your league as an editor, I am still deeply committed to Wikipedia and its ideals.
 * Nick Beeson (talk) 16:34, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I am unsure as to why you bring up the difference between our edit counts; I have not made a personal attack against you, nor have I questioned your dedication to Wikipedia or your motivations for editing. I am glad that we have come to an agreement on two of the three items I mentioned. With respect to the lead, do you see the disparity between the length of the lead of this article and the length of the leads of most featured articles of a comparable length? Consider the leads of such featured articles as Pisco Sour and Andjar Asmara, which are articles of similar length to this article. I disagree with your assertion that no concepts or ideas were removed from the content of the lead. The lead is supposed to summarize all of the sections of the article, but nothing in the lead discusses the restaurant's history or influence dispite the existence of a "History" section and an "Influence" section in the body. I also think one sentence about critical reception to be insufficient, and much less than is customary; at the very least, the most common positive comment and the most positive negative comment should be included. What are your thoughts? Neelix (talk) 16:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I do not care. Do what you want. I believe my changes are reasonable and correct, but the basic rule is for each editor to do what they want, and to not engage in "edit wars". By the way, this article is much longer than most theme restaurant articles, which, on average, seem to be,in total, about the length of the introduction here.

I mentioned my edit count because I was awed to be in the presence of such an illustrious editor. I think I am no slouch, but to be in the top 250 you must make an enormous number of edits. I am deeply and sincerely committed to the good faith of Wikipedians. I have had many happy and pleasant interactions with them. Nick Beeson (talk) 18:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I am confused by your comments. I do not understand why you mention edit wars. There has been no edit war between us; I have not reverted your edits to the lead, but I rather initiated this discussion with you. Thank you for agreeing to allow me to re-expand the lead. I agree that most theme restaurant articles are shorter than this one, which I would argue is because most theme restaurant articles have not been developed to the extent that they ought to be. Neelix (talk) 23:10, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the copy edit, I'm currently checking the rate of Featured Article compliance with a part of the MoS called WP:LQ, and this article currently uses a mixture of British and American punctuation forms (which is against the rules). I'd fix it myself but 1) I hate WP:LQ, hope it dies, and don't want to inflict it on such a nice article and 2) I would rather see it go down within Wikipedia's rules than tell all of you to straight-up disregard it or open up the unholy can of worms that would be flung at me full-speed if I were to do so myself. So I'll just tell you that WP:LQ exists and if any of you feel strongly about comma placement or MOS compliance, you might want to check it out. For the sake of copy editing alone, you should probably pick just one variety of English for the whole article. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ Neelix (talk) 15:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Possible FAR?
Evidently this article has excessive bloat. Would a featured article review be appropriate? sst✈discuss 09:22, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It is a prime example of how this editor blows up articles with excessive detail and 49 references. It's a restaurant. Look at concerns expressed in the past above - exactly what I thought when I read it. Legacypac (talk) 09:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I am more curious how this recently passed a FA nomination, since the concerns raised were already in the article during the FAC. sst✈discuss 09:53, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Pinging users who have commented at this article's FAC. What do you think about concerns over excessive detail and non-NPOV writing of this article?

Anyway, I disagree that this article is too long or detailed. This article has a prose size of 14458 characters when it just passed FAC, which is perfectly appropriate. Unlike Tara Teng, this article is not a BLP. Comprehensiveness is appreciated with featured articles. Yes, it is created by Neelix, but I do not see anything wrong with this article. sst✈discuss 12:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * When I reviewed this article, it seemed okay to me. Nothing of the "God hail Tara Teng" type here. I'll check it again, though. epic genius (talk) 12:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure there is excessive bloat here. It's exhaustive in it's coverage of the sources, which FAs on "thinner" topics tend to be, but that doesn't mean bloating, or that it should be taken to FAR. - SchroCat (talk) 12:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think the article is too long at all; I still believe it is comphrensive and I believe any issues with prose can be easily corrected. I also concur with the views of SchroCat and epic genius. Z105space   (talk)  12:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments. Personally I agree that the article is at FA quality and trimming is not required; however, seemed to disagree, so I am seeking more advice. sst✈discuss 13:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

It is not awful, but it needed some trim. Not sure if the latest people are commenting on the current version or the untrimmed one. Legacypac (talk) 13:09, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I was commenting on the untrimmed version. - SchroCat (talk) 13:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Before the to-ing and fro-ing on the lead continues, I would stick with the longer version, which adequately summarises the article and does not need further trimming. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The version that passed FAC was fine. We should stick with it.  Tim riley  talk    14:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that this version is not excessively bloated, but only because it is detailed up to FA standards. The only thing I may have problems with is mentioning that Disney World has 6 parks, but of course not everybody knows that. epic genius (talk) 14:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)