| Revision as of 23:35, 24 March 2013 editKirtZJ (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers14,677 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:14, 25 March 2013 edit undoRyulong (talk | contribs)218,132 edits →Signature: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
| : I had no idea that there was such discussions on the fate of terminology sections, although I had already planned on rewriting most of the ] and ] articles where this problem is present and bring them up to B-Class for the time being at least as well the ones tied to them, such as their Anime and Character counterparts. It seems to me that amateur Wikipedians throw information into these articles without the knowledge of fancruft. For the time being I have reordered some of the text of Accel World so that I won't be confused about where the information goes and how it should be used when rewriting, the same goes for ''Guilty Crown''. I must also point out that the plots for both are utterly horrendous and some of the information regarding usage of fictional devices is either inappropriate or wrong. For now I'm focusing on these two and have taken everyone's suggestions into consideration from the talk page discussions you referred to although, with the complexity of the plots behind both, pace will be slow but ongoing. KirtZJ 01:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC) | : I had no idea that there was such discussions on the fate of terminology sections, although I had already planned on rewriting most of the ] and ] articles where this problem is present and bring them up to B-Class for the time being at least as well the ones tied to them, such as their Anime and Character counterparts. It seems to me that amateur Wikipedians throw information into these articles without the knowledge of fancruft. For the time being I have reordered some of the text of Accel World so that I won't be confused about where the information goes and how it should be used when rewriting, the same goes for ''Guilty Crown''. I must also point out that the plots for both are utterly horrendous and some of the information regarding usage of fictional devices is either inappropriate or wrong. For now I'm focusing on these two and have taken everyone's suggestions into consideration from the talk page discussions you referred to although, with the complexity of the plots behind both, pace will be slow but ongoing. KirtZJ 01:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC) | ||
| == Signature == | |||
| You still need to provide a link to your userpage in your signature. It is not allowed to be plaintext.—] (]) 16:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:14, 25 March 2013
Napsman
...I presume? Always good to see another one of us here. Let me know if there's anything I can help you with. Guettarda (talk) 04:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Ingress
Revised that screenie, feel free to drop it in as appropriate. Also a comment on one aspect of edits over on the talk page thereTim Bray (talk) 22:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Accel World
Hello. I see you're working on Accel World. Just want to tell you something. There has been (rough) consensus for some time now to phase out terminology sections (see this, this and this for relevant discussions). Since you seem to be rather knowledgeable about the series, can you somehow merge the contents of the terminology section into the Plot section, or alternatively, to re-work it into a setting section? That would eliminate excessive fancruft in the article and remove any undue weight for in-universe information. For an example of how this was done, see Shakugan no Shana (it reached GA status after the terminology section was phased out). Maybe you can do the same for Puella Magi Madoka Magica and A Certain Magical Index? The articles can't fulfill their full potential (reaching B or GA-class) until their terminology sections are phased out. Thank you and happy editing! Narutolovehinata5 01:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- I had no idea that there was such discussions on the fate of terminology sections, although I had already planned on rewriting most of the Accel World and Guilty Crown articles where this problem is present and bring them up to B-Class for the time being at least as well the ones tied to them, such as their Anime and Character counterparts. It seems to me that amateur Wikipedians throw information into these articles without the knowledge of fancruft. For the time being I have reordered some of the text of Accel World so that I won't be confused about where the information goes and how it should be used when rewriting, the same goes for Guilty Crown. I must also point out that the plots for both are utterly horrendous and some of the information regarding usage of fictional devices is either inappropriate or wrong. For now I'm focusing on these two and have taken everyone's suggestions into consideration from the talk page discussions you referred to although, with the complexity of the plots behind both, pace will be slow but ongoing. KirtZJ 01:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Signature
You still need to provide a link to your userpage in your signature. It is not allowed to be plaintext.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)