| Revision as of 12:02, 24 March 2013 editRyulong (talk | contribs)218,132 edits →Signatures: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:35, 24 March 2013 edit undoKirtZJ (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers14,677 editsNo edit summaryNext 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) | ||
| ==Notice of Dispute resolution discussion== | |||
| ] | |||
| Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at ] regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "]". | |||
| {| style="border: 0; width: 100%;" | |||
| |- | |||
| | style="width: 50%; vertical-align: top;" | | |||
| {{collapse top|bg=#cae1ff|bg2=#f0f8ff|Guide for participants}} | |||
| If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the '''''"Request dispute resolution"''''' button below this guide or go to ] for an easy to follow, step by step request form. | |||
| {{center|'''What this noticeboard is:'''}} | |||
| * It is an early step to resolve content disputes after ] discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction. | |||
| {{center|'''What this noticeboard is not:'''}} | |||
| * It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about '''article content''', not disputes about '''user conduct'''. | |||
| * It is not a place to discuss disputes that are ] at other ]. | |||
| * It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been ] (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN. | |||
| * It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy. | |||
| {{center|'''Things to remember:'''}} | |||
| * Discussions should be ], calm, ], ], and objective. Comment only about the article's ''content'', not ]. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion. | |||
| * Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{tls|drn-notice}} on their user talk page. | |||
| * Sign and date your posts with ] {{nowrap|"<code><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code>"}}. | |||
| * If you ever need any help, ask one of ], who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located ] and on the DR/N talkpage. | |||
| {{collapse bottom}} | |||
| Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you!<!--Template:DRN-notice--> ] <sup>''] / ]''</sup> 22:48, 23 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Signatures == | |||
| Please note that per ], you are required to have a link to either your user page or your user talk page in your signature. Currently, it is plain text which is not allowed.—] (]) 12:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 23:35, 24 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)