| Revision as of 03:59, 30 August 2014 editCyphoidbomb (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users166,474 edits →Needless reversions: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:01, 30 August 2014 edit undoCyphoidbomb (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users166,474 edits →Needless reversions: RNext edit → | ||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1,098: | Line 1,098: | ||
| Hi Koala, I've noticed you've twice changed gross totals at ] per your personal preference, for example , where I can't find a constructive counterargument in your summary, "keep it as a full number" or where you don't add an edit summary at all. As I previously tried to explain in , ] isn't a valid reason to revert, nor is ], should you attempt to make that argument. Contrarily, ] says: "Precise values (often given in sources for formal or matter-of-record reasons) should appear in articles only where stable and appropriate to the context, or significant in themselves for some special reason." The precise values you are submitting for a movie still out are not stable, and there is no real context that makes them appropriate for inclusion, and they are not significant in themselves for some special reason. See also where a consensus is established on the use of these long digits in film (which I admittedly learned about recently.) I also added an embedded note at Planes to explain that the Gross infobox parameter now indicates rounded numbers, but it appears you deliberately ignored that note in . ] (]) 03:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC) | Hi Koala, I've noticed you've twice changed gross totals at ] per your personal preference, for example , where I can't find a constructive counterargument in your summary, "keep it as a full number" or where you don't add an edit summary at all. As I previously tried to explain in , ] isn't a valid reason to revert, nor is ], should you attempt to make that argument. Contrarily, ] says: "Precise values (often given in sources for formal or matter-of-record reasons) should appear in articles only where stable and appropriate to the context, or significant in themselves for some special reason." The precise values you are submitting for a movie still out are not stable, and there is no real context that makes them appropriate for inclusion, and they are not significant in themselves for some special reason. See also where a consensus is established on the use of these long digits in film (which I admittedly learned about recently.) I also added an embedded note at Planes to explain that the Gross infobox parameter now indicates rounded numbers, but it appears you deliberately ignored that note in . ] (]) 03:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :This whole not using the full gross thing is just a preference of a small number of editors, the full gross has been used on here for years. I haven't seen enough concrete rules that we can't use them. As for that date template, it is just pointless. ] (]) 04:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm pretty sure that you don't get to decide that the existing consensus at WT:FILM is too "small" for it to be a consensus, and (predictably) you are arguing ]. Consensus has been established, consensus can change over the years, and the guidelines for expanded numbers are in the MOS, which is a Misplaced Pages-wide consensus. If you have a problem with these existing guidelines, then you need to argue for local consensus on all the articles you edit. Until then, you are editing against consensus established by the relevant WikiProject. Nothing in your response so far constitutes a coherent counterargument for any of these points. You have every right to participate in the various WikiProject discussions that come up, and if you don't, don't complain. But attempting to take ] of content as you appear to be doing in this case isn't constructive, and isn't consistent with community editing. (Addendum:) Per the instructions at ]: "The template {{tl|as of}} is used to mark potentially dated statements, and will add an article to the appropriate hidden sub-category of Category:Articles containing potentially dated statements. This allows editors to catalogue statements that may become dated over time." Since we are using ephemeral dates that may get updated until such a time as they are no longer updated, the template will alert other editors of this fact, so they can update the content appropriately. That you say it is pointless (without any explanation) doesn't mean that it ''is'' pointless. It's just another thing you don't like, but can't explain why. ] (]) 04:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::The fact that you think i'm trying to take "ownership" of the content lessens your argument. I just don't think that their has been a definitive enough guideline set against the full gross. Since the majority of film articles still use it. ] (]) 04:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I think I've said already that the definitive guideline is ], and ] now reflects the specific consensus established through discussion at WT:FILM. So far you've only asserted that your perspective is correct because the other "majority" of articles haven't been changed yet. The new consensus was established in May. And I'm sorry, where did you find that the "majority" of articles list the long-form gross totals? Or is that just hyperbole? If you're going to dig in your heels on this, I think I have the stronger argument since I'm citing both general MOS numerical guidelines as well as a discussion that you could have been a part of. Your argument is that you don't like it, and that all the other articles haven't been changed yet. Unless you have something more substantial than ], I think you're out of gas. ] (]) 05:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC) | |||