User talk:Robynthehode/Archives/2021/January

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Regarding TLOUIIs reception (Could use some help)

Hey man I saw that you had a discussion about how the critical reception section of The Last of Us Part II was formatted back in July and I agree with you how it falls under WP:UNDUE and WP:PROPORTION. It seems a lot of the editors really wanted this game to be seen as polarized or negatively received among critics (often using mental gymnastics) despite evidence to the contrary e.g. Metacritic score, removing the labels of universal or critical acclaim that otherwise games with similar scores would receive on their Wikipedia pages. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the editors were part of the hate bandwagon that had plagued the game back then but just like the haters it seems a lot of them have moved on. I started a new discussion to get a new consensus on the The Last of Us Part II page, and I was hoping you could back me up with it (I'm not a super experienced wikipedia user so I could use some help). I think enough time has passed and the discussion around the game has evolved enough (as more people played it) that we could get a new consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMassEffector (talkcontribs) 18:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding your reversion of my edit to "List of tallest buildings and structures"

Greetings and felicitations. I noticed that you reverted my edit to the article "List of tallest buildings and structures". Please let me explain my changes.

  1. I moved the "short description" template per MOS:SECTIONORDER.
  2. I added a carriage return after the first image, at the top of the article, to aid in editing. I admit that this is a personal preference—I find that it makes it easier to distinguish the first paragraph from the items above it.
  3. Similarly, I added a carriage return above the bulleted list for the same reason.
  4. I changed curly quotation marks to straight ones per MOS:CURLY and moved a period per MOS:CURLY.
  5. I moved a period per MOS:INOROUT.
  6. I deleted second and subsequent wikilinks to the "Willis Tower" article per MOS:REPEATLINK.
  7. I added "and" to a "Convert" template per MOS:RANGES.
  8. I added another carriage return after a "Main" template to aid editing as per above.
  9. I deleted the redlink "List of tallest industrial buildings" per MOS:SEEALSO ¶3.
  10. I added a space after a bullet to aid editing—I find it easier to pick out semicoloned headings, and items in bulleted and numbered lists if there is a space after the punctuation mark.
  11. I deleted an extra carriage return between navbar-type templates as I saw no reason to keep it.
  12. Lastly (for reasons of formatting the following sublist(s)), I added the definite article to "Willis Tower" and "Sears Tower" per the usage in the Willis Tower article (which I checked before making the change) as it existed before your edit ("the Sears Tower": 13 instances; "the Willis Tower": 10 instances). As for your assertion that the references do not support the use of the definite article, the record is mixed. A sampling of the first eighteen citations shows:
  • no: 1, 3, 6, 8, and 15 (but using the definite article in this case would not be grammatically correct in this instance: "completed Chicago's Sears Tower (then the[...]"). However, numbers 1 and 3 do not use the name(s) in complete sentences, so I would tend to discount them.
  • yes: 2, 4, 13 [1], 14 [2], 18
  • both: 7 (one each), 9 [3], 16, 17
  • incomplete references: 10, 11, 12
That's as far as I got, but I can check more references if you like. (I've included links missing from some of the references here because I did not want to edit the article to include them while the article is under discussion.)

As I've noted, some of these are personal preferences, but six are drawn straight from the Manual of Style. —DocWatson42 (talk) 10:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@DocWatson42: Thanks for making your edits clear here rather than reverting my revert. I haven't had a chance to check your edits re MOS but I will take them on good faith. My assertion re the definite article is supported by the two main tall building sites that are used as reliable sources in Wikipedia namely Council for Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH) and Emporis. In addition the buildings own website does not use the definite article. I changed the Willis Tower article after checking these. I have now updated the ref re CTBUH in that article. So if I would argue that if you remove this part of you overall edit I will be happy - consensus? As a standard procedure it is better to take these sorts of disputes to the article talk page so other editors can see the discussion. Thanks Robynthehode (talk) 11:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reversion of edits to List of Test cricket records

What is the "standard procedure" to which you refer? Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 20:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Edwin of Northumbria: quite a few cricket articles have this as the standard editing consensus. See James Anderson (cricketer) for example (the hidden text). Robynthehode (talk) 20:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you'll find that very few editors now stick to this rule (I cite as an example, exactly the same page on Jimmy Anderson, as it currently appears). This follows the practice of Cricinfo, which also didn't use to update statistics during matches. I don't see why readers should be short-changed by not providing them with the most up-to-date figured – which is what, I suspect, they now expect to see. Otherwise, there is a danger that people will regard Wikipedia as always being "behind the curve", and therefore irrelevant. Providing statistics are revised in a consistent manner, I don't see why there should be any restriction of the kind you suggest.

(Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 21:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC))Reply[reply]

@Edwin of Northumbria: The status on the James Anderson page was changed against the hidden text (I have reverted that change for now). This issue needs to be discussed at an article talk page, maybe the List of test records one so there is consistency across Wikipedia. Maybe you can start a topic and we can engage with other editors. Can't see your argument is convincing. Whether the stats are updated now or in 5 days does not make Wikipedia irrelevant or behind the curve. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not a news service. Robynthehode (talk) 22:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. I would agree that in theory some discussion here would be a positive move, but is perhaps difficult to achieve in practice as in my experience editors tend to update pages only related to the team(s) they follow – if you any suggestions on this point they would be welcome. As for the rationale given, I can only say that if I hadn't started editing Wikipedia pages on cricket myself, I would go straight to Cricinfo for information in most cases, precisely because it is more up-to-date (indeed many stats are now updated ball-by-ball). My impression is also that since I (and other editors) started making quicker changes to stats on Wikipedia, the articles have also been given more prominence in search engine results (although I have no way of verifying whether this is actually the case for not). As as I see it, a bigger problem exists in ensuring that when one page (or section of a page) is updated then others are too, as editors don't always approach things in a comprehensive manner.

(Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 23:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC))Reply[reply]

P.S. I would agree that Wikipedia should not attempt to provide a "news service" as such, which in its current form would be impossible anyway. My point is merely that it can do itself a lot of favours by providing information that is as accurate and up-to-date as possible, since this is now what people are now used to receiving from other online sources – sadly perhaps, it is no longer the case that cricket fans eagerly await a summary of the preceding day's play to drop through the letterbox with their morning newspaper!!

(Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 23:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC))Reply[reply]


Can you please edit the skyscrapers page and place mumbai in 7th place with 150 skyscrapers because i am not a volunteered member of wikipedia and i cannot edit the page because of vandalism policy. MasterchiefJohn117Gopnik (talk) 18:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MasterchiefJohn117Gopnik: Your account isn't blocked as far as I can see so you can do the edit yourself. You have made a number of main article edits so I can't see the problem. Robynthehode (talk) 22:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]