User talk:Bignole/Archive/2016/July

Arrow (season 1)
Hi, you recently changed the word Steele with Walter in the episode plot summary. As I mentioned in the edit summary, Wikipedia is a formal encyclopedia and we must do our best to keep it that way. But about the other characters who were mentioned by their first names, they are family members and have a common last name; so there is no choice but to use the first name, as using both the first and last names will make the section too long. --HamedH94 (talk) 04:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * We write in formal for real people. Not so much for fiction. We have never said "Smoak", "Harper", etc. for the other characters that don't share a last name. That is because most of the time, those character never go by those names. Even if we know them, they don't go by those names. They are not real people, they are fictional, and when we write about fiction we use the common usage of their name.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter what people go by in the fictional work. This is a neutral and objective encyclopedia, not a fans blog. The formal style applies to all articles. Look at WP:FORMAL and WP:CYF. Colloquialism is discouraged. --HamedH94 (talk) 12:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


 * That is true when you write from a real world perspective (i.e., the rest of the article), NOT when you're writing the plot of a tv, movie, book, etc. Those are not written from a real world perspective.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:48, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Looks like you don't check the links about the WP essays I send; because if you do, you should have seen "Formal tone means that the article should not be written using argot, slang, colloquialisms, doublespeak, legalese, or jargon that is unintelligible to an average reader; it means that the English language should be used in a businesslike manner." If you have any essays or guidelines that support your claim, please send them. --HamedH94 (talk) 14:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I did read it. First, essays are just that...essays. Second, again there is a difference between the real world perspective of an article and a plot section written from an in-universe perspective. If you feel that strongly, feel free to bring it up on the talk page and solicit other opinions on it. But every film page, featured and not, that I have worked on as well as TV articles have used first names when that was the common usage for a fictional character. Unless it is interchangeable in the film/tv show, it's how ever they go. For example, Freddy Krueger is often called "Freddy" and "Krueger", so we typically write "Krueger". But, "Jason Voorhees" is never written as "Voorhees" because no one calls him that. They call him "Jason".   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  16:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Come to the talk page of the article. --HamedH94 (talk) 17:06, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Collaboration
Hello Bignole, just want to let you know that I have finished my expansion on the article for the horror film I Drink Your Blood and I have already incorporated what I have done so far on the draft page into the actual article itself. However its still needs a little more work done to it though, namely giving proper citations to unsourced material, updating citations, and expanding the section on the film's controversy. At the moment I am finished with the article, and I am leaving it up to others to further modify and expand it. I am also working on a new article to collaborate on for WikiProject Horror. It is the article on the infamous horror character Leatherface which is pretty significant but, unfortunately, it is in a state of severe underdevelopment and suffering from poor writing and few sources. My plan is to expand it significantly so that it reaches its full potential, and quite possibly become a featured article like the one on Jason Voorhees. However, for this particular project I will need the help of as many editors as possible since the level of expansion needed would be too daunting for any one or even three editors. Similar to the other collaboration that I have done with I Drink Your Blood, I have already created a draft for the use of expanding the article which I will include the link here. Let me know whether or not you would be able to help expand the article on my talk page and see if you can get other people on this.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:56, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --HamedH94 (talk) 15:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

BvS "some"
Some means that "not all the analysts" wanted to see $1B, thus only "some analysts" would say that it was considered "a disappointment", while other analysts had their expectations met.

In lieu of saying "there were analysts who had their expectations met at $800 MM and there were also analysts who had their expectations met at $850 MM and there were analysts who were disappointed that it did not reach their expectations of $1B" - which I guess would be the most accurate way to state the whole long saga - how is it not fair to summarize as "some analysts considered it "a disappointment" for failing to reach $1 billion"? Readers will understand that this means that some were not disappointed and some were, without having to write every-single-analyst's-expectations.

Don't know if this is a concern that the shorter form is seen, perhaps, as being pro-BvS or con-BvS - it is merely a simple logic that some does not mean "all analysts", and readers will understand that there was a difference of opinion from analysts that is important enough to mention. (even if some are satisfied means pro-BvS, some are disappointed implies con-BvS, readers will understand that message that the movie does not carry a one-size-fits-all "a-ok" from all analysts). Jmg38 (talk) 19:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the feedback. I'm still not sure how to ensure there's an understanding that "not all the analysts" called it a disappointment.  Again, I'm not trying to salvage the reputation of the film, I'm just want to avoid the 100% agreement that is implied by the phrase it was considered "a disappointment" for failing to reach $1 billion.


 * The link you suggested, WP:WEASEL, actually talks about editors who use "some" to try and get away with Unsupported attributions. The examples given explicitly point to this.  The WP:WEASEL link also reinforces that an unsupported "some" is different from the use of "some" where "the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution.  Likewise, views which are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if they accurately represent the opinions of the source.


 * My use of "some" in the BvS item is not dangling in the breeze, trying (without attribution) to imply that there might be an unnamed someone out there that holds these views. The first sentence, regarding $800+ MM, ends with specific attributions (ref name="Box Office – The Wrap", ref name="Rainey" and ref name="Box Office – Deadline") to show that there are some specific analysts who saw reasons why making a multi-million profit is not a failure.  References regarding $1B that are found at the end of the very next sentence (ref name="Box Office – The Wrap" (repeated), ref name="Scott Mendelson" and ref name="Flavorwire") further show that some specific analysts were disappointed that the figure was not larger.  The point is to acknowledge the difference of opinion amongst the analysts themselves. Jmg38 (talk) 04:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Horror Collaboration
Expansion for the article on Leatherface is in full swing, thanks for all the help. I did add some information pertaining to the additions you made in the talk page for the draft. Hopefully it helps. Again thanks for the assistance.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Added some more information to the draft, I also replied and added new topics in the talk page that you should check out. So far it has been just you and me collaborating and working on expanding this article. We really need to get other people in on this project because it is way too big and important an article for just two people to work on. Thanks for all the help.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:09, 27 July 2016 (UTC)