Talk:Blood Money (Breaking Bad)

Plemons' Absence

In the article Jesse Plemons is said to have been billed as part of the cast but was not seen in the episode. I don't know if this counts, but during the "previously on Breaking Bad..." recap sequence you can see him briefly:

http://www.freeimagehosting.net/newuploads/y6ys4.jpg PCLM (talk) 07:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Quotation marks within parenthesis

This is a bona fide example of how WP:IAR can come in handy: although technically we are supposed to put quotation marks around episode titles, ("this") just doesn't look aesthetic and therefore, prevents us from improving Wikipedia. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

That's a really weak argument. To say having something be grammatically correct is not improving Wikipedia is ridiculous. You can't just cite IAR to please your needs. Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:04, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Please explain how omitting the quotation marks would be grammatically incorrect... you seem to confuse grammar with MOS. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 04:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Episodes titles are enclosed within quotes per the MOS, it doesn't matter where they appear. I see several examples throughout the WP:MOS where you can see quotation marks within brackets. You even said yourself in your first comment, "technically we are supposed to put quotation marks around episode titles", your only reason is because you don't like it. How am I confusing grammar or the MOS, when I'm enforcing something that is grammatically correct and correct per the MOS? Anyway... Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many times you assert a false statement – it's still untrue (and beginning to border a personal attack as well). It's not that I don't like it, but it rather looks (objectively) unaesthetic, and aesthetics are a big part of encyclopedic writing. You never addressed my question about the pertinence of grammar (or lack thereof) in this case, and you are almost militantly rejecting anything I have to say about that, with your only reason being "MOS says that", without addressing the "why" (which is exactly what IAR advises us to avoid). So again, please tell me how quotation marks within parenthesis are grammatically incorrect (only grammar, not MOS). Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Uh, what... how am I lying, and about what? I'm stating something that is true, episodes titles are enclosed with quotation marks, whether it's on Wikipedia or wherever else, it's that simple. Why do I have to continue trying to please you, when your only reason is because you don't like them? To say quotation marks within brackets is "preventing you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia" is so ridiculous it's not even funny. Trust me, I'm huge on aesthetics, and what stuff looks like visually, and that is not bothersome at all. Get a grip on what's important here. Another editor, Froid, has properly reinserted the quotation marks, so I'm not going to bother with this silly thing anymore. Drovethrughosts (talk) 11:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I didn't ask you to please me, I asked for a simple answer to a simple question, which you have not yet delivered nor will you ever. Here is why you are behaving like a giant dick right now: you're pushing the discussion in your own direction by repeatedly reasserting a false claim (there's the answer to "how am I lying, and about what") that my reason is "I don't like that", which is untrue, and has been addressed multiple times. Furthermore, your behavior resembles WP:IDONTLIKEIT much more than mine, as you're ducking the issue at hand, while I actually bother to discuss it. Get some manners. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no issue. You, personally, don't like how it looks. That is not a reason to override policy.

If you truly feel the policy is wrong, there are better places to discuss it. Here maybe? --> Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Titles --SubSeven (talk) 00:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Really??? It's not personal, have you not read the discussion at all? It's not personal, my concern was aesthetics. Read the f@^king discussion, I'm really tired of defending myself against windmills. It's just an article, for f@^k's sake. And according to IAR, a desire to better Wikipedia (like, for instance, non-subjective aesthetics) is a good reason to override a policy, especially under such mundane circumstances. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 07:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)