What's the polite way of saying "grotesquely over-detailed summaries like these need to be attacked brutally with a chainsaw"? And what talk page can I say it on?
Prompted by this sort of thing, which just makes me put my head in my hands.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_QI_episodes_(E_series)
Boldly move the individual episode summaries to individual articles?
Michel
On Feb 10, 2008 3:41 AM, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
What's the polite way of saying "grotesquely over-detailed summaries like these need to be attacked brutally with a chainsaw"? And what talk page can I say it on?
Prompted by this sort of thing, which just makes me put my head in my hands.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_QI_episodes_(E_series)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_QI_episodes_%28E_series%29
-- Earle Martin http://downlode.org/ http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Not while the arb com case is in progress.
On Feb 9, 2008 9:50 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke wikipedia@zog.org wrote:
Boldly move the individual episode summaries to individual articles?
Michel
On Feb 10, 2008 3:41 AM, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
What's the polite way of saying "grotesquely over-detailed summaries like these need to be attacked brutally with a chainsaw"? And what talk page can I say it on?
Prompted by this sort of thing, which just makes me put my head in my hands.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_QI_episodes_(E_series)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_QI_episodes_%28E_series%29
--
Earle Martin http://downlode.org/ http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 10/02/2008, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
Not while the arb com case is in progress.
Link? Not all of us avidly follow the more dramatic sections of the project.
On 2/10/08, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
What's the polite way of saying "grotesquely over-detailed summaries like these need to be attacked brutally with a chainsaw"? And what talk page can I say it on?
Has the article changed since you made that comment? They honestly don't look "over-detailed", and certainly not "grotesquely" so. The tone could be improved, and they could by copy-edited shorter, but as a summary of what was contained in the episode, it seems pretty much appropriate to me.
Steve
On 10/02/2008, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Has the article changed since you made that comment? They honestly don't look "over-detailed", and certainly not "grotesquely" so.
Not in the slightest. Reading it is like trying to talk to a trivia-addicted speed freak with a side fetish for statistics.
There are severe tone of voice issues throughout to boot. The article is even littered with unqualified fictional statements such as "In the Rhubarb Triangle (a triangle made up of the 3 cities of Leeds, Bradford & Wakefield in West Yorkshire), rhubarb grows so quickly, you can hear it grow."
There are severe tone of voice issues throughout to boot. The article is even littered with unqualified fictional statements such as "In the Rhubarb Triangle (a triangle made up of the 3 cities of Leeds, Bradford & Wakefield in West Yorkshire), rhubarb grows so quickly, you can hear it grow."
Those aren't "unqualified fictional statements", they're quotes from the show.
On 10/02/2008, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Those aren't "unqualified fictional statements", they're quotes from the show.
The manner in which the author of the list has presented them is quite disingenuous, then. It is entirely unobvious to a casual reader who is unfamiliar with the purpose, nature and structure of this television program that they are anything but statements of fact made in keeping with the tone of voice established throughout the other articles of the encyclopedia.
On 10/02/2008, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
On 10/02/2008, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Those aren't "unqualified fictional statements", they're quotes from the show.
The manner in which the author of the list has presented them is quite disingenuous, then. It is entirely unobvious to a casual reader who is unfamiliar with the purpose, nature and structure of this television program that they are anything but statements of fact made in keeping with the tone of voice established throughout the other articles of the encyclopedia.
Why would a casual reader be reading the article having not first read the article on the program itself? Once they've done that, they would be familiar with the purpose, nature and structure of the program.
On 10/02/2008, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Why would a casual reader be reading the article having not first read the article on the program itself?
Why do you think I started this thread in the first place? I did, because I felt like it. The assumption that I am not the only human in the world to participate in such behavior is a good one.
On 10/02/2008, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
Why do you think I started this thread in the first place? I did
Clarification: "did" here means "read the list article before the parent article".
On 10/02/2008, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
On 10/02/2008, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Why would a casual reader be reading the article having not first read the article on the program itself?
Why do you think I started this thread in the first place? I did, because I felt like it. The assumption that I am not the only human in the world to participate in such behavior is a good one.
If you start reading an article and are finding it difficult to understand, the sensible thing to do is to go and read a more general article on the subject first.
On Feb 11, 2008 2:17 AM, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
The article is even littered with unqualified fictional statements such as "In the Rhubarb Triangle (a triangle made up of the 3 cities of Leeds, Bradford & Wakefield in West Yorkshire), rhubarb grows so quickly, you can hear it grow."
Fictional, is it?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/food_and_drink/real_food/art... .
Person, meet Google. Google, meet person.
RR
On 10/02/2008, Relata Refero refero.relata@gmail.com wrote:
The article is even littered with unqualified fictional statements such as "In the Rhubarb Triangle (a triangle made up of the 3 cities of Leeds, Bradford & Wakefield in West Yorkshire), rhubarb grows so quickly, you can hear it grow."
Fictional, is it? http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/food_and_drink/real_food/art...
Try reading that again and comparing it to the statement I quoted above. They do not correspond.
The corrected sentence would read as: "In a small number of farms in Leeds, Bradford & Wakefield in West Yorkshire, the farmers use zero-light growth sheds to accelerate the growth of rhubarb. In the quiet environment of the sheds it is possible to hear stalk buds bursting open."
I guess you wouldn't mind, then, if I was to add this to an article somewhere:
"In a 500 km² area northwest of Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada, animals grow so fast that they can gain an additional 400 pounds in 3-4 months."[1]
Person, meet Google. Google, meet person.
Oh please.
[1] [[Feedlot]], [[Feedlot Alley]]
On Feb 11, 2008 2:35 AM, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
On 10/02/2008, Relata Refero refero.relata@gmail.com wrote:
The article is even littered with unqualified fictional statements such as "In the Rhubarb Triangle (a triangle made up of the 3 cities of Leeds, Bradford & Wakefield in West Yorkshire), rhubarb grows so quickly, you can hear it grow."
Fictional, is it?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/food_and_drink/real_food/art...
Try reading that again and comparing it to the statement I quoted above. They do not correspond.
The corrected sentence would read as: "In a small number of farms in Leeds, Bradford & Wakefield in West Yorkshire, the farmers use zero-light growth sheds to accelerate the growth of rhubarb. In the quiet environment of the sheds it is possible to hear stalk buds bursting open."
Dear Lord, humour is dead. Of course they don't strictly correspond, its a TV show. Its a very slight rewording of an indisputable fact for humorous effect. Its simply not "fictional", and you didn't bother to check.
Why don't you make it easier on yourself and pick a real example of bloat?
RR
On 10/02/2008, Relata Refero refero.relata@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Lord, humour is dead. Of course they don't strictly correspond, its a TV show. Its a very slight rewording of an indisputable fact for humorous effect. Its simply not "fictional", and you didn't bother to check.
You seem to have lost track of the fact that we are writing an encyclopedia.
The original statement as issued was misleading. No amount of blustering will change that.
Why don't you make it easier on yourself and pick a real example of bloat?
You can't make things go away by claiming that they don't exist, so why are you trying?
The original statement as issued was misleading. No amount of blustering will change that.
It was, however, the quote from the show. The article is not about rhubarb, it's about QI, the quote wasn't intended to educate people about rhubarb, it was intended to educate them about QI.
On 10/02/2008, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
It was, however, the quote from the show. The article is not about rhubarb, it's about QI, the quote wasn't intended to educate people about rhubarb, it was intended to educate them about QI.
It didn't educate me at all, so it failed.
On Feb 9, 2008, at 9:41 PM, Earle Martin wrote:
What's the polite way of saying "grotesquely over-detailed summaries like these need to be attacked brutally with a chainsaw"? And what talk page can I say it on?
Prompted by this sort of thing, which just makes me put my head in my hands.
I find not merging them down to a list is a good way to start.
-Phil
Earle Martin schrieb:
What's the polite way of saying "grotesquely over-detailed summaries like these need to be attacked brutally with a chainsaw"? And what talk page can I say it on?
You can say it on any talk page you like, but don't expect any positive effect whatsoever. And if you boldly edit, an RfAr will be filed.
Welcome to Wikipedia.
Isn't that list a particularly bad example? It merely mentions the particular Quite Interesting things brought up, and makes no effort to duplicate banter. Actually, I've enjoyed looking through it tremendously - some of that stuff is *really* interesting. And much more actually encyclopaedic than "On the surface, tumbleweeds blow across dirt tracks as the landing party make their way towards the buildings. T'Pol doesn't detect signs of weapons fire. Archer sends Mayweather to the communications tower to see if the data buffer is intact in order to copy their last transmissions." (From a random ST:E episode article.)
RR
On Feb 10, 2008 8:11 AM, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
What's the polite way of saying "grotesquely over-detailed summaries like these need to be attacked brutally with a chainsaw"? And what talk page can I say it on?
Prompted by this sort of thing, which just makes me put my head in my hands.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_QI_episodes_(E_series)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_QI_episodes_%28E_series%29
-- Earle Martin http://downlode.org/ http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 10/02/2008, Relata Refero refero.relata@gmail.com wrote:
Isn't that list a particularly bad example? It merely mentions the particular Quite Interesting things brought up, and makes no effort to duplicate banter.
"Duplicating banter" is a good thing?
some of that stuff is *really* interesting.
[[WP:INTERESTING]]
And much more actually encyclopaedic than "On the surface, tumbleweeds blow across dirt tracks as the landing party make their way towards the buildings. T'Pol doesn't detect signs of weapons fire. Archer sends Mayweather to the communications tower to see if the data buffer is intact in order to copy their last transmissions." (From a random ST:E episode article.)
I believe there is a specific name for the fallacy that "X is fine because Y is worse", but it escapes my mind at present.
Regarding whether the content of the list is encyclopedic, the first sentence of [[WP:TRIVIA]] is "Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous facts." That in this case the list is a summary of miscellaneous facts mentioned in a random television program does not make it any more encyclopedic.
On 10/02/2008, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
On 10/02/2008, Relata Refero refero.relata@gmail.com wrote:
Isn't that list a particularly bad example? It merely mentions the particular Quite Interesting things brought up, and makes no effort to duplicate banter.
"Duplicating banter" is a good thing?
No, it's a bad thing, which is why it's a good think that the article makes no effort to do it - try reading more carefully before replying.
I believe there is a specific name for the fallacy that "X is fine because Y is worse", but it escapes my mind at present.
"X if fine because Y is worse and Y is considered acceptable" (the last part was implied) is perfectly valid logic. (I dispute the implied assertion that that particular plot summary is acceptable, but that doesn't affect the logic.)
Regarding whether the content of the list is encyclopedic, the first sentence of [[WP:TRIVIA]] is "Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous facts." That in this case the list is a summary of miscellaneous facts mentioned in a random television program does not make it any more encyclopedic.
It's not a random television program, it's the television program that's the subject of the article.
On 10/02/2008, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/02/2008, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
On 10/02/2008, Relata Refero refero.relata@gmail.com wrote:
Isn't that list a particularly bad example? It merely mentions the particular Quite Interesting things brought up, and makes no effort to duplicate banter.
"Duplicating banter" is a good thing?
No, it's a bad thing, which is why it's a good think that the article makes no effort to do it - try reading more carefully before replying.
"A particularly bad example" is ambiguous in this context. You mean, then, that Relata was saying that the list is a bad example of a bad article. The way phrase "makes no effort to duplicate banter" sounds like a criticism also.
Regarding whether the content of the list is encyclopedic, the first sentence of [[WP:TRIVIA]] is "Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous facts." That in this case the list is a summary of miscellaneous facts mentioned in a random television program does not make it any more encyclopedic.
It's not a random television program, it's the television program that's the subject of the article.
...that I encountered randomly. How would you feel if the program was something like, say, [[Ikebukuro West Gate Park (TV series)]]? (Substitute something equally foreign to you if you happen to watch TV in Japan.) All articles on TV shows and other media should be approached by their writers with the totally unfamiliar audience in mind, and aim for clear and succinct explanatory writing, not a robotic parroting of every minor point of the show's content ever broadcast.
"A particularly bad example" is ambiguous in this context. You mean, then, that Relata was saying that the list is a bad example of a bad article.
Yes, that's quite clearly what Relata was saying.
The way phrase "makes no effort to duplicate banter" sounds like a criticism also.
You're misinterpreting.
It's not a random television program, it's the television program that's the subject of the article.
...that I encountered randomly. How would you feel if the program was something like, say, [[Ikebukuro West Gate Park (TV series)]]? (Substitute something equally foreign to you if you happen to watch TV in Japan.) All articles on TV shows and other media should be approached by their writers with the totally unfamiliar audience in mind, and aim for clear and succinct explanatory writing, not a robotic parroting of every minor point of the show's content ever broadcast.
Who cares how you encountered it? The article is not about the TV show itself, it's about the episodes of the TV show - it's safe to assume anyone reading the article will already have a passing familiarity with the show itself, we have an article on it, after all. And the whole point Relata was trying to make was that it doesn't parrot every minor point.
On 10/02/2008, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
it's safe to assume anyone reading the article will already have a passing familiarity with the show itself,
I have already proved you wrong on this point.
On 10/02/2008, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
On 10/02/2008, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
it's safe to assume anyone reading the article will already have a passing familiarity with the show itself,
I have already proved you wrong on this point.
"it's safe to assume" doesn't mean "it's always true that". One counterexample doesn't make any difference to my point.
On Feb 11, 2008 2:19 AM, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
On 10/02/2008, Relata Refero refero.relata@gmail.com wrote:
Isn't that list a particularly bad example? It merely mentions the particular Quite Interesting things brought up, and makes no effort to duplicate banter.
"Duplicating banter" is a good thing?
No, its a bad thing, they dont do it, hence its a bad example for your thesis.
some of that stuff is *really* interesting.
[[WP:INTERESTING]]
..and not an indiscriminate collection of information. And I chose that phrase as a joke, because the title of the show is ... oh, never mind.
And much more actually encyclopaedic than "On the surface, tumbleweeds blow across dirt tracks
as
the landing party make their way towards the buildings. T'Pol doesn't
detect
signs of weapons fire. Archer sends Mayweather to the communications
tower
to see if the data buffer is intact in order to copy their last transmissions." (From a random ST:E episode article.)
I believe there is a specific name for the fallacy that "X is fine because Y is worse", but it escapes my mind at present.
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And I was still talking about how its a really bad example to choose if you want to make your point.
Regarding whether the content of the list is encyclopedic, the first sentence of [[WP:TRIVIA]] is "Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous facts." That in this case the list is a summary of miscellaneous facts mentioned in a random television program does not make it any more encyclopedic.
Not a random television programme. The subject of the parent article.
RR