Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by IllaZilla (talk | contribs) at 06:42, 12 June 2010 (→Back off: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

I like to keep conversations in one place. If you make a comment here, I'll reply here, so keep an eye on this page for my response. If I left a comment on your talk page, I'll be watching it awhile, so just respond to it there.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

A conversation that might interest you

Please see here Based on your feedback to my talk page, I thought this might be of interest to you. Please add any insight you have. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Easter egg link

How is "planets" not contextual? It is put into the context of "Set in the fictional Star Wars galaxy". How is it unexpected to show up at an article about the fictional planets in that fictional galaxy? --Torsodog 06:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm in the process of typing up an explanation of my edit on the article talk page. Please give me a few minutes & I hope to make it clear. Thanks. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem. It isn't a huge deal, as that list is basically useless anyways, but the link made sense to me. I'm going to head to bed now though, so I'll check out your explanation in the morning. Night --Torsodog 06:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Six Song Demo

I have nominated Six Song Demo, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Six Song Demo. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Last of the American Girls

I spent two hours creating and referencing that page and you just blanked it. What the hell? Signs point everywhere that its released or going to be released as a single. It doesn't matter if it has had airplay and has a music video, true, but it has a CD release for June 4th; there's cover art that is OFFICIAL. Look it up and research it yourself. And if you didn't like the article saying it was a single, you could've just made it as a song article, and changed the infobox and single information to song; not erase the whole page that I worked hard on. I don't think this is right, you're annoying a majority of people by pretending that this song isn't a single, and I think there should be an article for this song/single at least.--Crocodileman (talk) 02:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not the only one who recognizes that the song has not been released as a single, and that an official announcement about a future release date for a single has not been made. Whether this annoys a majority of people or not is of no relevance to me. Either it has been released as a single or it hasn't, and it hasn't. Even if it is, it needs to meet the criteria at WP:NSONGS, demonstrated by significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources that are independent of the subject. Fan sites, Youtube, and passing mentions on airplay listings are none of the above. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Beautiful Thieves

Maybe it's not notable but it's still a single, right? I get removing the article but why take it off the singles list? ×××BrightBlackHeaven××× 08:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, does said significant coverage have to be about the song as a single, or (can it be) just the song, or its music video? I'm not really sure here. ×××BrightBlackHeaven××× 08:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I posted at Talk:Beautiful Thieves as to how I couldn't find any reliable sources confirming the song's release as a single. I'd be happy to continue the discussion there if you like. "Significant coverage" could certainly be about the song itself, which would include the music video and any released single. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Reverting edits

Please do not revert edits that are intended to help readers. Misplaced Pages is a website reade by readers across the world. Over 30 countries use $. Clarifying the currency used within articles is only of benefit. The inclusion of such inclusion helps and does no harm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.100.212.94 (talk • contribs) 06:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I assume good faith on your part, however your edits are inconsistent with our manual of style. Please read the link I left on your talk page to WP:$ and follow its guidelines. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, and as such it has style guidelines to promote consistency. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Timelines

Hi, IllaZilla. You have just deleted one timeline that I made and one I corrected, but you know, it took me much time and work to do them that it hurts. I don't think the one of misfits should be removed because the box you said that is intuitive is actually hard to read, specially for the visual people; and in the timeline that I made it's also easier to follow bandmates that rejoin. And the one from Slayer I think it should be kept as is easier to know which drummer was in each released studio album. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 19:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The intent wasn't to hurt your feelings, but I really don't see the use in these "timeline" graphs. Who was in a band at what times, and what releases each lineup played on, is not the type of information that lends itself to a graph format. It's much easier to see in the vertical table style, where the dates, releases, and members are all grouped nicely together. With the graph you have to look at the bar, then look at the x & y axes to find the names & dates, then look at the color key to determine the person's role...the whole thing is unnecessarily complex. Also the table format has the advantage of being able to name the releases, which the graph doesn't. A vertical black line for "studio release" doesn't really convey much to the reader. In Slayer's case there is really no need for a table or graph at all, as there have only ever been 7 people in the band, and the dates they were in the band are right there next to their names. The discography is directly below this, and it gives the date for each studio album, so it's rather simple to figure out who played on which albums just by looking at the dates. And of course the lineup changes and albums are explained in the History section, so anybody actually reading the article rather than just looking for a colorful chart should be able to find all that information anyway. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I see, so you find complex the graphic timeline; ironically I find more complex the table than the graphic, I think it varies from person to person. You said it is simple to figure out who played in which albums by comparing the two lists, well that's bassically what the chart was for, to avoid you the problem of comparing; besides is not as simple as you said, because the dates are just given in years, and sometimes an album is released the same year that a bandmate was changed, so, by comparing the lists, you can't know which one actually was playing in that album.

And, obviously, the linup changes and albums are explained in the History section, but we still have the lists or boxes with the band members, I don't think that's a valid reason to remove the chart. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 19:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's see if I can explain the difference using an old revision of the Misfits article that has both the table and the timeline. Let's say I wanted to know the band's lineup in 1981:

• Using the table I simply look down the left column until I find 1981 (in this case part of the timespan "Oct. 1980–Apr. 1982"). Immediately next to that I see the lineup clearly listed: Glenn on vocals, Jerry on bass, Doyle on guitar, and Arthur Googy on drums.
• Using the timeline I have to find 1981 along the x axis, then I have to go upward and find the colored bars. Then I have to look at the y axis to see which names those bars correspond to. Finally I have to look at the colors of the bars and compare them to the Legend beneath the graph to figure out what positions those individuals occupied. This is much more complicated than using the table.

Now let's say I wanted to know who all the band's drummers were:

• Using the table I can scan down the right-hand column, and in each lineup I can see whose name is in the "drums" position.
• Using the timeline I have to look at the Legend to see which color corresponds to drums. Then I have to look along the graph to see where that color bar appears. Then I have to trace back to the y axis to see which names those bars correspond to. Again, more complicated than using the table format.

Now let's say I wanted to know exactly when Bobby Steele was in the band:

• Using the table I go down the right-hand column until I find Bobby Steele's name. Then in the left column I see that he was in the band from November 1979 to April 1980.
• Using the timeline I find Bobby Steele's name on the y axis, then I go along the graph until I find a colored bar. Then I go down to the x axis and I see that the bar spans 1979 to 1981. Not only are there more steps involved than using the table, but the information is less accurate because the x axis only displays years, not months. There's no way for me to intuitively figure out that he joined in November of '79 and left in April of '80.

Finally, let's say I wanted to know who played on Walk Among Us:

• Using the table I glance down the left column until I find Walk Among Us, then I look in the right column and there's the lineup.
• Using the timeline I can't find this information at all, because the releases aren't named. There's just a series of vertical black lines signifying "studio albums". I'd have to refer to the discography, which isn't even in the same article, and try to match up the dates in order to figure out which individuals played on that album. In this case the table format is clearly superior, as it provides information that the timeline can't.

You can see why I find the table format much more intuitive and useful than the timeline graph. Graphs are best for presenting purely numerical data, but that's not all we're trying to present here. We're trying to convey names, dates, positions, and releases played on. This is something that a graph just isn't the best format to present; a table is less complex and more precise. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, now I see what you mean about the table being more intuitive, I see that it has the many adventages as you said. I still think that the graph has some adventages like:

• It presents the information globally.
• It is colorful, making it easier for the visual people.
• If you want to find who all the band drummers were, it is actually more quickly if you have a graph, because with the table the drummers repeat themselves several times, while in the graphic you just have to read them once.
• I actually find harder to look when a band member was in the band with the table than the graph. In the table is not as simple as you described. You actually have to find the member from a list of many members that repeat themselves various times; when you find him you have to see where he leaves and now check the date of the square where he joined and then the date of the square where he leaves. Finally, it is harder to know if a band memeber rejoined the band later as you would have to check all the rest of the members repeating themselves in each square.

I don't mean to replace the table for the graph, I think that both of them could be kept, so that people can see the one they prefer the most. That would be a good solution, seeing that both formats have it's own advantages and disadvantages. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 00:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. I'm not sure what you mean by "it presents the information globally". Whether it is colorful or not really has little bearing on its utility. The most convenient way to find the drummers is actually just to look at the list of members, since it lists their positions and the relevant dates right next to their names. I don't really see how it's easier to trace repeating members in the graph than it is in the table: you'd still have to follow their color bar, then trace down to the x axis to interpret the dates, and as I said the table can be more precise with the dates (even down to the day, if known) than the graph can. As for whether a member rejoined later, that is slightly more visible in the graph but it really doesn't provide any added utility. We're already presenting the same information (members, dates, positions, and releases played on) twice: Once in the ariticle proper (the list prose) and once in the table. There's really no need to present it a third way (by graph). Ultimately one could present this same information in a myriad of ways (list, table, graph, diagram, chart, etc.), but there's really no point to repeating the same information multiple times in different formats. We should stick to the 1 or 2 formats that convey the most information and have the most utility to the reader. Clearly in this case that's the list prose and the table. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

What I meant by presenting the information globally is that you can look to all the information in just a quick look, while in the table it would take you some time, specially because the members are repeating themselves various times. This causes that the people can't see all the information until scrolling down the screen.

About the colors, I'll have to explain a little more. There are three main types of people: the auditive, the visual and the kinesthetic (see Learning styles). I am a visual person and have easier understainding when something colorful is presented, maybe you aren't a visual person and that's why you don't get the utility of the colors.

Now, I'll explain with an example to what I meant with the members repeating various times:

• In the table Glenn Danzig is written 11 times, it will take you some time to read just him that many times. Then you have to scroll up the screen and see the first date in which he joined and then scroll down and see the end date of the square he left.
• In the graph you just have to read him once, then see the approximate dates where he joined and leave.

You said: "As for whether a member rejoined later, that is slightly more visible in the graph but it really doesn't provide any added utility." Actually, it does for me, I can easily see when someone rejoined two or three times (not in this case of Misfits). While in a table I would have to read all the, let's say, the drummers, to know if one of them rejoined. But you have to concentrate more, to try to remember all the names you see and finally get which ones rejoined. And to further complicate the matter, the names repeat themselves serveral times, making it harder to remember all of them.

About the last part, I partially agree with you, that we can present the information in a myriad of ways. But I don't think that anyone would take the time to make diagrams or charts that doesn't bring any adventage. What I'm trying to say is that both, the table and the graph, have their own advantages and disadvantages, and that would be a good reason to leave them both; so that people can choose the one they prefer most, the more-precise tables or the synthesized graph. As an extra piece of information, I have seen various articles in Misplaced Pages that present the information in the three ways: table, graph and list.

PD: Sorry if my answer looks like a wall text and thanks for taking the time to answer me ;). Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 04:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely; I appreciate your well-explained responses. And many of my posts turn into walls of text too, so rest assured I read all of it :) I take your point about people with different learning styles, but I think that as an encyclopedia (which consists primarily of text), we don't necessarily need to present every kind of information in all the different styles. Sure, there are some things that are best explained using images (ie. photos of persons or objects). There are also some things that are best explained using tables and graphs (numerical data such as census results, temperature changes, etc.). And there are some things that are best explained using audio files (musical compositions, animal vocalizations, etc.). The type of information we're dealing with here is, in my opinion, best presented using prose. In fact with your Glenn Danzig example, if you wanted to see when he was in the band you don't even need a table or a chart...the dates of his tenure are right there below his name, next to his picture. So if that's the info you're looking for, the best place to find (and present) it is in the list itself. Ditto with Slayer's Dave Lombardo: if you want to know when he left and re-joined the band, the dates are right there next to his name. What we're really trying to display with the table/chart is: What were the lineups of the band at particular times? And who played on which releases? In my opinion a table is a superior format for displaying this information, for the reasons I've stated above. If you want to know when a particular person joined or left (or joined then left then re-joined), well, the ideal place to find that is in the list itself. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Back off

Please stop leaving unhelpful and rude meassages. Please stop reverting helpful edits. Please stop threatening people wishing to improve articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.14.239 (talk) 06:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

If you can identify any of my comments as rude or unhelpful, I will gladly correct them, but I believe I have been perfectly civil. You are not improving the articles at all; rather, you are edit-warring and causing disruption. Since you refuse to discuss the issue in any kind of constructive matter, you leave me little choice but to respond with the appropriate warnigns. Be assured, I will take the issue through formal channels if your behavior continues in this manner. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

You have been rude, you have made unhelful edits, you have not given appropriate reasons for reverting helpful changes .. who can it be damaging to clarify which of the 30+ dollar currencies? Misplaced Pages is read wordwide. The subjects themselves are not uUS specific. Please stop your edit war. Please stop damaging the articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.14.239 (talk) 06:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I have not made a single uncivil comment, and I have given ample reason for reverting your unhelpful edits. All of these are American films produced and distributed by American companies, and the articles refer to no other currencies than the US dollar, so yes, the articles are in fact US-specific. As WP:$ instructs, we are able to simply use "$" as there is little to no potential confusion with any other countries. Even if there were potential confusion, we are instructed simply to use "United States dollar" on the first instance and simply "$" on all subsequent usages. By why bother repeating that which I have already told you? You clearly have no regard for Misplaced Pages's Manual of Style nor the logic behind it, thus attempting to explain my reasons to you is a futile exercise. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Your edits have been unhelpul. Your attitude has been impolite. Your reverts of very small but helpful clarifications have not helped articles, rather they have damaged them. As I have previously noted, and politely, over 30 countries use $ and the articles that have been modified are not specific to any one of these. As Misplaced Pages has a global readership I struggle to undertstand your reasons for insisting that '$' only is used .. this symbol does not denote any one currency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.14.239 (talk) 06:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Explain to me how there can be any confusion regarding Brüno. The rationale you previously gave was that it stars a British actor. Of course the United Kingdom does not use the dollar, it uses the Pound sterling, symbolized by a ₤, so there can be no potential confusion with the U.S. dollar, symbolized by a $. Cohen's nationality has nothing to do with it. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)