Talk:Battle of the Bastards/Archive 1

Archive 1

Lede section

I've had to remove parts of the Lede section twice and rewrite it at least once. What's the resistance? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 12:23, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

If it were better written, I wouldn't be as opposed to it. As it stands the previous summary is both better written and better encompasses the plot section in a way that complies with WP:LEAD. Also, you're very close to 3RR having reverted multiple users now. Calibrador (talk) 04:27, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

First of all, your argument of my being close to violating 3RR would be more of a talking point if you weren't in danger of violating it yourself (translation: I'm glad you see the splinter in my eye; get the log out of yours).

The version of the Lede that you appear to prefer reiterates many points of the plot, making the Plot section redundant. This isn't necessary. The version I added was brief, concise, communicated the broad strokes of the episode without going into substantial detail - all part of LEDE. The point of the Lede section is to draw people in, not by giving them specific plot points before they can get pulled in to read the Plot section. I welcome differing points of view to find the common ground; edit-warring and 3RR threats are really, really not the way to foster collaborative editing. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Forcing your version, which was a change to the already present lead for the article, doesn't equate to not needing consensus. I do not support your changes, and you have been reverted by more than one user while forcing your lead on the article. You've been blocked multiple times now due to your inability to obtain a consensus, and believing it is your way or the highway. As one of the users who has added and contributed valuable content to the article, I strongly oppose your addition, and look forward to reporting your behavior if it continues. Calibrador (talk) 14:03, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

It isn't my version, and any fool could see that. And again, I'd point out that you keep reverting to your preferred version of the Lede, so pull the log out of your eye before complaining about your perception of the splinter in mine. Jeez.

Now that you are here, stop reverting (bc the next time you do, you're heading to 3RR - count on it), start defending your version. I've already done so twice, and you have failed to indicate why your sersion deserves to see the light of day. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:23, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

You were reverted by both me and User:AffeL, yet you seem to not want to acknowledge this. Reverting just outside the 24 hour window of 3RR does not release you from guilt in engaging in an edit war. I added the original plot summary to the article as it was being expanded once it had aired. It was erroneously removed by you, then you added your own version replacing the existing lead with your own version, without any sort of consensus, and reverting every time your version was reverted back to the original. Calibrador (talk) 14:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

This is how articles are created in Wikipedia: you add an edit. If everyone likes it (and really, that's kinda rare), the edit gets left alone. If someone reverts it, they usually go into detail as to why. If you disagree with it, you head to the discussion page and discuss it, working out a solution that everyone can live with (aka. consensus). This is what I have done.

When your preferred statements are reverted, you do NOT keep reverting, as that is a sure way for the editors you are dealing with to give up on assuming good faith with you and your edits. Once gone, its very hard to get back and usually spreads to any other articles you are both editing on. In short, don't be a tool; we appreciate it when you use talk instead of your presumption that you are smarter than we are. I can promise you, you aren't.
Lastly, I will point out that 3RR looks at all the edits, in order to see a pattern. the 24-hour period is not an electric fence to not touch, and you can get blocked for tendentious editing. I have given you several opportunities to talk about your position on this matter (which means more than just dropping the word 'Lede' into the talk page); you need to avail yourself of them before you get blocked.
Now, I have explained my point of view on why the non-redundant version is better. Explain why it is not. This is your chance to do so, and this is the right place to do so. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Please stop pretending like I have not attempted to discuss your edit warring. My first comment on this talk page was almost immediately after your first comment. You did not leave another comment until you were reverted by two different users. Calibrador (talk) 15:05, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

And here you should have stayed instead of edit-warring your pet version back into the article. Maybe you are starting to understand that edit summaries aren't a good replacement for actual discussion. You should have realized after the pet version was reverted out that it was time to talk about it in the talk page.. I applaud you finally figuring that out. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Calibrador. The current version is very poorly written, and the previous version does a much better job of summarising the plot, albeit neither version is amazing. I would be in favour of putting the previous version back in, and then working on it from there, as the quality of the current version is dreadful. Somethingwickedly (talk) 19:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I understand your point of view, but WP:LEDE doesn't suggest reiteration, it recommends brevity. The pet version of the other editor is neither brief nor concise. You are of course entitled to your opinion of the quality of the writing of the briefer version. Perhaps you can work within that version to improve it. My main cononcern is eliminating the redundancy, length of the Lede and in-universe pov of the relevant section. I've adequately altered the modified section on three separate occasions with that singular goal in mind, - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:03, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

You have a fundamental misunderstanding, just drop it. Your version says decisively twice in the same sentence. Nothing about your version is preferred, and this redundancy claim holds no water, the point of a lead is to summarize its contents, not give a complete different take on it. Calibrador (talk) 20:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Look! A random user removed one of your "decisively"'s! Better revert them! Calibrador (talk) 20:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd advise you about how your comments can be perceived, Calibrador. The repercussions are considerably more severe than you might have imagined.

And you are welcome to illustrate my "fundamental misunderstanding" of WP:LEDE; I think my understanding is on point.

I would point out that on numerous occasions - including my post immediately above - that reworking is fine. My key concerns are removing the redundancy of plot points (broad strokes are better for the Lede), the removal of in-universe phrased information, and keeping the size of the section smaller. We write for the reader, who might skim the Lede before deciding to read the article or not. Immediately dropping into plot points in the Lede when we do the same thing in the Plot section is - by definition - redundant and unnecessary. Brevity is the soul of the Lede, and the removed bit doesn't help improve the article.

I am willing to help find a workable solution, but not at the cost of the three points I've already noted.` - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

You must've never heard the phrase "pot calling the kettle black," given you have left cursing messages on my talk page. Calibrador (talk) 20:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

If you take exception to the tone of my posts on your talk page, I would think that your talk page would be the place to complain about them, not in an article article about the episode. Could you confine your comments to the subject at hand, please? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I think you've been fairly overruled by three different users, I'd suggest stopping your disruptive editing behavior now. Calibrador (talk) 21:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I believe I understand your concerns, Calibrador; however, you have failed to address mine. Since you don't appear to want to, I am still engaging with the other user who's taken the time to post here about the issue. Be patient; we aren't in a hurry. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Status quo ante bellum.

I have reverted the lead to the state it was in prior to the current edit war, and the state it was in more-or-less, as of about a week ago. This is the status quo ante bellum. Per WP:NOCON, when there is no consensus for a change, the article remains in the state it was in prior to the proposal or edit.

Simply put, the onus is on the person proposing a change to reach a consensus for their preferred version. There has been no consensus for this change to the lead and therefore there will be no change until such a time as an agreement can be reached. There is no option to edit war in your preferred version as the proposer, and demand it remain until someone else convinces you otherwise. That is not how this works.

This works by engaging in WP:CIVIL discussion and reaching an agreement with other editors, and that is the only path forward.

WP:CONSENSUS is a Wikipedia policy. Flout it at your own risk. TimothyJosephWood 22:51, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Universal acclaim?

Noting something has universal acclaim is probably not the right word to use; the article is new, and while it appears - at this point - to have been widely liked, there is no way to predict that absolutely every reviewer is going to like it. A quick Google search clearly demonstrates that not everyone was head over heels about the episode. The term 'universal' (or similar term) removes the possibility that any detractors exist. We do n ot do that here. I'd recommend a less absolutist approach. I had offered the term 'widely acclaimed', which does precisely that, but it was reverted, and it appears that it has now turned into a Thing over at a noticeboard.

Y'all understand the concept of collaborative editing, right? It means that when disagreements pop up, and - this being Wikipedia, they inevitably will - you are supposed to head on over to the talk page to sort out the strengths and weaknesses for inclusion/exclusion. Unfortunately, everyone went off their meds and forgot to even try that. For my part, the reason I didn't initiate a discussion is that avoiding an absolute term just seemed obvious. Clearly, this discussion is necessary. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The use of the world universal should be avoided for a couple of reasons. At best it is a WP:PEACOCK, assuming it's used figuratively, and confers an artificially inflated sense of importance. At worst it is simply wrong, per article content, the "acclaim" has not been "universal".

The least that needs to be provided is a reliable source (WP:RS) using this language, and even then the language should not be said in Wikipedia's voice, but should be quoted per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. This, in turn, should only be done following consensus, and there does not appear to be agrement that this language should be used. TimothyJosephWood 14:48, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The way I've gauged the level of critical praise is through the review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes, which I believe has only one review out of several dozen that has deemed the episode rotten. I have no qualms about whatever wording is decided to be used, but think that should serve as the reference point from which a reliable source can be utilized for level of praise. Calibrador (talk) 21:19, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

We tend to refrain from using absolute terms in an article, due to the transient nature of an article's version. Best to stay with terms that allow for a more balanced view of a topic. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:22, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

So is it agreed that we should change it to widespread critical acclaim?Joef1234 (talk) 04:56, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I didn't realize it still said universal. TimothyJosephWood 10:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Yet again with the edit-warring

I've now removed the captioning: "Showrunner David Benioff listed this shot as his favorite of the season." It's unnecessary, since it is noted within the article. There seems to be a somewhat savage disconnect between what an article in Wikipedia is supposed to be and some wikia, where everything including the kitchen sink gets tossed into an article. I intend to help that line in the sand well-defined. The article doesn't need the bloat, with redundant bits and whatnot. Less is ALWAYS going to be more in a Wikipedia article. We don't chew the subject matter up into a thin, nasty gruel for the reader. We present a precise, concise overview of the subject so that the reader can follow external links and references to expand their own knowledge on the subject. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:42, 9 July 2016 (UTC)