User talk:Adamstom.97
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
"Verified" genres
Apologies for asking you here, but regardless of the discussion I proposed on the talk page, what do you mean by "verified genres" as you state here. The genres are not in the article and I'm totally unfamiliar with this ruling/standard and I see no information about it on Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television. Can you expand on this? Andrzejbanas (talk) 07:11, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
- Usually we look to the network/streaming service to see what basic genres they list. Any genres not on that list aren't covered and so they need third-party sources. For example, Disney+ lists the genres for The Mandalorian as action adventure and science fiction, so we don't need a third-party source to use those in the infobox. However, we did need a source in that article to change science fiction to "space western" which is commonly used by third-parties discussing the series. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:18, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
- That would be against WP:WEIGHT and WP:INDEPENDENT. Andrzejbanas (talk) 07:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
- No, it's not, and if you are going to act that way then please keep your comments to the article's talk page rather than mine. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:31, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
- To clarify when you said "act that way" what do you mean? as you if it's not against these ruling, I'd like a clear explanation to defuse any debates further. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:59, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
- You are being rude and intentionally frustrating, rather than having a good faith discussion you keep linking to different irrelevant policies and guidelines. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:20, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you felt I was being rude. I have to admit, I don't know what directly was rude to you. Just to clarify so I don't repeat the actions, what was specifically rude to you? I believe we are supposed to go by policies, otherwise, why are they there? I promise I'm not trying to infuriate you or assume you are doing anything malicious, you obviously are an editor who puts pride in their work and works hard so I am doing this in good faith to improve articles, not to quarrel with anyone. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:40, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
- I think your tone and overall approach is very aggressive and completely unwarranted. Yes, we are supposed to follow policies, but we are not supposed to use them as weapons in an argument. I and all the other editors involved in these discussions are well aware of all the policies and don't need them shoved in our faces. You are allowed to disagree with us, but that doesn't make us stupid. The fact that you keep changning your argument makes it feel like you are trying to pick a fight rather than improve the article. - adamstom97 (talk) 14:12, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
- I was not trying to say you did not know them, as I have no clue what you do or do not know. I am not trying to attack you as I do not know you and only edited that article after seeing genres listed with no source. I'm just bringing them to the table to show I'm not pushing for anything. And honestly, I'm not familiar with all the rules either as there are many. I ask you to assume WP:Good faith, because it will definitely assist us in going forward. Speaking of which, I was unfamiliar with WP:PRIMARYCARE which states "An article about a film: The film itself is an acceptable primary source for information about the plot and the names of the characters. A Wikipedian cannot use the film as a source for claims about the film's themes, importance to the film genre, or other matters that require critical analysis or interpretation." I feel this can be applied to television articles, as they key aspect of genre requires a critical analysis. Again, please know I'm not saying you are wrong or am right, or you are unfamiliar with rules or are trying to dodge them or anything. I have your statements that I've misread the rules but even on reading them a second time, I do not see what you are claiming. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:01, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
- I was just letting you know why I found your comments to be rude. - adamstom97 (talk) 16:43, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
- And I appreciate you telling me, but I'm not sure how you want me to get my point across that the standards and rules suggested otherwise than you suggested. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:00, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
- I was just letting you know why I found your comments to be rude. - adamstom97 (talk) 16:43, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
- I was not trying to say you did not know them, as I have no clue what you do or do not know. I am not trying to attack you as I do not know you and only edited that article after seeing genres listed with no source. I'm just bringing them to the table to show I'm not pushing for anything. And honestly, I'm not familiar with all the rules either as there are many. I ask you to assume WP:Good faith, because it will definitely assist us in going forward. Speaking of which, I was unfamiliar with WP:PRIMARYCARE which states "An article about a film: The film itself is an acceptable primary source for information about the plot and the names of the characters. A Wikipedian cannot use the film as a source for claims about the film's themes, importance to the film genre, or other matters that require critical analysis or interpretation." I feel this can be applied to television articles, as they key aspect of genre requires a critical analysis. Again, please know I'm not saying you are wrong or am right, or you are unfamiliar with rules or are trying to dodge them or anything. I have your statements that I've misread the rules but even on reading them a second time, I do not see what you are claiming. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:01, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
- I think your tone and overall approach is very aggressive and completely unwarranted. Yes, we are supposed to follow policies, but we are not supposed to use them as weapons in an argument. I and all the other editors involved in these discussions are well aware of all the policies and don't need them shoved in our faces. You are allowed to disagree with us, but that doesn't make us stupid. The fact that you keep changning your argument makes it feel like you are trying to pick a fight rather than improve the article. - adamstom97 (talk) 14:12, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you felt I was being rude. I have to admit, I don't know what directly was rude to you. Just to clarify so I don't repeat the actions, what was specifically rude to you? I believe we are supposed to go by policies, otherwise, why are they there? I promise I'm not trying to infuriate you or assume you are doing anything malicious, you obviously are an editor who puts pride in their work and works hard so I am doing this in good faith to improve articles, not to quarrel with anyone. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:40, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
- You are being rude and intentionally frustrating, rather than having a good faith discussion you keep linking to different irrelevant policies and guidelines. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:20, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
- To clarify when you said "act that way" what do you mean? as you if it's not against these ruling, I'd like a clear explanation to defuse any debates further. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:59, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
- No, it's not, and if you are going to act that way then please keep your comments to the article's talk page rather than mine. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:31, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
- That would be against WP:WEIGHT and WP:INDEPENDENT. Andrzejbanas (talk) 07:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
This is my suggestion
Star Wars Tales (comic book) and Star Wars Tales (TV anthology) Have a WP account since 2006 but only do anon edits because it's about accuracy, not building up my reputation or edit count. Also, avoiding WP addiction. So won't likely check back in about this naming issue. Just starting to watch Underworld today. Hope my suggestion is useful.35.129.1.72 (talk) 17:24, 14 May 2025 (UTC)