User talk:Mepolypse

If I've commented on your user talk page (or elsewhere), then I'm watching that page and would prefer that you answer there.
If you've commented here then I will respond here (unless you ask me otherwise), so you may want to watch this page.

Page move

I disagree with your move. The Prince and the Pauper (film) was not a dab page, but a film WP:SETINDEX like The Three Musketeers (film). All of the main entries are films. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry, wasn't aware of that concept. Feel free to move it back, or let me know if you want me to do it. The reason I edited that page was that The Prince and the Pauper linked to only one of the films in the hatnote. It should probably link to the setindex page instead. --Mepolypse (talk) 02:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it back and updated the hatnote. --Mepolypse (talk) 02:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Hathaway

I saw your comment, reverted your last change, and commented on Hathaway's Talk page. I think it looks okay now (although not as good as it would with the line rowspan adds), and it doesn't interfere with the sortability issue, which is a big deal for many Wikipedia editors. Personally, I think the sortability feature is way overstated and that rowspan tables look quite good, but I usually lose that battle. Thanks again for your help.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Generally I think rowspans are overused on Wikipedia for repeating content (such as joining all rows with the same year in a year column where the year itself is not the primary topic of the row. A rowspan would have been fine here though, if not for the accessibility issue (which trumps what looks good IMO), the sortability issue (which also seems useful, although I never use it), and if it is decided that this is one item ("film") as opposed to two. --Mepolypse (talk) 01:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to say in these filmographies what should be considered the "primary" column. As a linear thinker, I view the leftmost column (the year) as the primary column. And, even substantively, when I think of an actor's work, I think of it chronologically by year, so combining multiple films into one year makes sense to me. Others, of course may disagree. It's hard to get anyone on Wikipedia to agree about anything. :-) (I'll watch this page in case you wish to respond. You don't need to alert me on my Talk page.)--Bbb23 (talk) 01:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So to you it's more of a "yearography". :-) Seriously, to me the film is the primary content column in a filmography, but the year (or rather date) is the primary sorting column. Having either of those first seems fine logically, but having the year first looks nicest IMO. --Mepolypse (talk) 01:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cute, a new word coined just for me. I understand that the film represents the actor's work, not the year, obviously. However, looking at the films sorted by year makes the most sense. I don't know why I'd ever want to sort an actor's film work by film or by role. That's part of why I believe the sortability is so overdone. You just put in a table with rowspan in chronological order. It looks better and it doesn't have useless features. IMO. Heh, I just saw an episode of The Good Wife. It's a legal show, and it has this running theme of portraying judges as completely silly, sometimes even deranged. On the episode I just saw, the judge insisted that each time an attorney said something, he or she had to always say "in my opinion".--Bbb23 (talk) 02:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I will neither admit nor deny that I may or may not have had some experience with the legal profession in a past life. Seriously, trying to separate objective points from personal opinion is very useful, IMO. Like you say, it's hard to get people on Wikipedia to agree on stuff, but it's hardest to agree on personal preference, and easier to agree when you leave all that out and try to reason based on objective points. --Mepolypse (talk) 02:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, and who decides what is objective? In any event, I "lost". Another editor came along and commanded the outcome. After expressing some umbrage at his peremptory manner, I let it go. And your sentence about admiting/denying and may/may not betrays you. Only a lawyer or some other equally misguided individual would craft a sentence like that. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 02:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No comment. :-) --Mepolypse (talk) 03:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I do have a comment about combining years using rowspans in for example filmographies, partly prompted by your reordering in that filmography. The thing is that these year columns represent the date (or more generally, a point in time), where the date is truncated into a year (for compactness, to have the cells equally wide, and to not include an excess of information that's less important here than in for example a film infobox). Still, these years are representative of a date, and having them sorted by year leads to a reasonable expectation that the items are actually sorted chronologically by date, not just by year. (That's the problem I have with the reordering.) As such, the decision to group by year is somewhat arbitrary. Why should items in for example January 2009 and December 2009 be grouped while items in December 2009 and January 2010 are not? Grouping makes it seem like the items are related and does not make it clear in what way. So if the year column is actually a date column in disguise it seems inappropriate to group by year. In other words, the table structure itself should not be affected by how columns are truncated. IMO. --Mepolypse (talk) 03:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Besides that, there's the issue that the second Simpsons episode, "Once Upon a Time in Springfield", actually first aired in 2010, not 2009 as the filmography claims. (I'm assuming the year column lists release dates, as is customary, not production dates.) --Mepolypse (talk) 03:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made a similar remark on Hathaway's talk page. The two episodes are on the order of six months apart and she may-well have performed another role during the interval. The base-order of such a table should hew to what facts we know, not be driven by a penchant for seeking to find an order that 'looks right'. Jack Merridew 03:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I already pointed out on Hathaway's Talk page, I did NOT add the new Simpsons episode. Another editor did. And, just as I stated or implied there, I'm tired of your tone, your erroneous assumptions, and your condescension.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was this directed at me or at User:Jack Merridew? If the latter, perhaps his talk page would be a more suitable venue, as he might not follow this page. --Mepolypse (talk) 05:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was directed at Jack, certainly not at you, and my apologies for putting it on your Talk page, but his comments here riled me (I really shouldn't let this sort of thing get under my skin). My guess is he's following this page, but, regardless, I don't intend to put the comment on his Talk page. However, you should feel free to remove it if you wish, not that you need my permission, but just that I would understand perfectly why you might want to.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reply at talk:Hathaway. Jack Merridew 06:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spaced em dashes

The following conversation has been moved from User talk:842U.

I see you added a number of spaced em dashes to iPad. Please note that em dashes should not be spaced, per WP:EMDASH. --Mepolypse (talk) 15:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reading en dash verus em dash, which says in practice, there is little consensus, and it is a matter of personal or house taste – as well as reading the WP:MOS, which says spaced en dashes – such as here – can replace unspaced em dashes in all of the ways discussed above, – then to be more precise, it's ok to use en or em, but when using en dash use a space and when using em dash, don't. Thanks. 842U (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, but I don't feel my comment was imprecise. I only said that em dashes should be spaced. --Mepolypse (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say your comment was imprecise. I said my explanation was more precise. By definition, a more complete and whole explanation of the rules would be more precise than only half the story. 842U (talk) 20:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I purposely did not mention the fact that unspaced em dashes and spaced en dashes are replacable, specifically because I felt that would dilute the issue (since you hadn't used en dashes on that article). I guess our definitions of precision differ. Anyway, I'm glad we can agree that em dashes should be spaced on Wikipedia, and hope we can both get back to editing articles now. --Mepolypse (talk) 20:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as we go forth editing and 'talking' with our fellow editors when they stray, we can reduce the risk of diluting the issue or encountering differing definitions of precision, by saying: It's ok to use en or em dashes – though en dashes get spacing and em dashes don't. 842U (talk) 21:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disney live-action shorts vs animated shorts/

I think it is better to keep these as separate list as I think they are less overlapping now my resent moves made sure of that. But it still don't make sense to me to keep a list animated feature and then list them again with live-action feature on the page i moved recently. DoctorHver (talk) 01:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion? The sockpuppet has a point of not wanting to intermingle the small handful of live-action theatrically-released shorts with the plethora of animated shorts on the other page. Can't say I see the benefit in merging the two as the live-action items would get lost in the shuffle. On the other hand, if they were merged into their own section on a single "shorts" page... then that, I could support. HTH. SpikeJones (talk) 03:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Future iPad

Thanks for catching that. --Pnm (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RFC notification

Due to your editorial involvement in {{Winnie-the-Pooh}} I thought you might want to participate in the RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates#RFC: Overhauling the Disney franchise templates for consistency.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]