This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Last_of_Us_Part_II/Archive_2#Reception_Section_and_Undue_Emphasis 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 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
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.
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)
What is the "standard procedure" to which you refer? Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 20:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
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))
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))
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))
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)