User talk:JackalsIII

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! BlueAg09 (Talk) 20:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

AFI sections
When you are converting prose AFI information into table, please do not do so without also moving any references that are connected to the information. I am currently going through and cleaning up the changes you have already made, add the references back in, but please do not continue this practice in the future. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 02:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I have seen the edits you've made, and just wondering if you're also going to all of the other pages like Casablanca, Gone with the Wind, and The Godfather and rearrange those AFI tables to prose? Or is it that I stepped out of bounds and editted the pages that you are currently watching. If that's the case, really sorry about that though I do have to say that I like to see all of the films the American Film Institute recognizes in a similar listing format. Please let me know what exactly you didn't care for. Just trying to keep a uniform look for the AFI rankings. Thought I'll help that process out. Really didn't mean to offend or cause you to go out of your way to fix all of my intentions. JackalsIII (talk) 16:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

You know what, I get what you mean. Instead of undoing that information, I should just add the AFI table right after it so that we have the prose and the table so that we keep the references where they belong and for those who just like to look at a chart, there is that too. Thanks Ed! JackalsIII (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I'm no purist about prose vs. tabular information -- there is some stuff that's better presented in a table or a list -- so I have no objection to your coverting prose to table per se, as long as you move any references connected to the prose information over to the table, so that a citation isn't lost. That's really the focus of my concern. With the other tables you mention, I think I was around when they were added, and if there was a connected ref, I made sure it got moved.  If there's a table now without a reference, there was probably none in the original prose (if, indeed, there was any original prose -- some of those tables were added ex nihilo.) Ed Fitzgerald t / c 03:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, just so you are aware, it's not as if there was any discussion about adding those AFI tables -- they were all added by a single editor, working under a number of different names, and were not the result of any editorial consensus. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 03:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * One other thing: it would be best to date the AFI entries, and put them in chronological order, as per this. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 03:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, glad we're on the same page now. Thank you for taking the time to respond and I'll make sure to add the years to the AFI tables that I create from now on. That's a good way to do it. JackalsIII (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, we're not exactly on the same page. Your AFI sections are not always necessary, in my opinion, but when you do create them, they're better placed in "Awards and honors" rather than "Reception". Ed Fitzgerald t / c 20:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll start putting them in the Awards and Honors section then, thanks! I'm not sure when they wouldn't be neccessary, every film honored should have the opportunity to have their ranking listed. JackalsIII (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

"Awards and honors", with a small "h". Ed Fitzgerald t / c 20:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * When a film has only one AFI listing, it seems overkill to insert a table, when a simple prose mention would do. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 21:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Then again, something should be said about having a uniform look. Something that draws the eye. JackalsIII (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, no. The point of an article is not to draw the eye to the AFI information over anything else, it's to provide the reader with the information needed in the best possible way. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 21:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Right, poor choice of words on my part, but not to overlook the rest of my sentence of having an uniform look to the sections. JackalsIII (talk) 21:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, uniformity is fine -- when there is need for a table, having them look the same is the fine thing. But a table with a single entry is not really necessary, as it takes up more space then a simple prose sentence would.  The reader gets the information with the unecessary use of resources. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 21:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I finished doing the 100 Laughs but I don't want to move on to Thrills if I'm doing something wrong with creating a table with only one ranking. Should I stop doing that and just create a "Awards and honors" section with the one sentence? Or are we okay with the table with one ranking to keep the uniform look? I don't want to be wasting resources. JackalsIII (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)