Talk:The Punisher (2014 series)
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Etzedek24 in topic Article quality
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Punisher (2014 series) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
Article quality
editHi @*Treker:, and thank you for your work on this page. Please do not revert any further edits until we have reached a consensus here on this talk page regarding the article's quality.
- Plot: I removed the plot section because it was not very well-written. If there is to be a plot summary of the series, it should be more in-depth, and cite specific issues where necessary.
- Incomplete template: I added the incomplete template initially because there was a "publication history" header that had no text underneath it. If you intend to leave it like that, you should add the "Under construction" template to the page.
- Plot sources: as I said in my edit summary, the article is not a place to indiscriminately store sources in the manner of the plot. They should be kept in your own userspace, and used when necessary. Etzedek24 (Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?) 22:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- Why should I comply by your personal ideas of how long or detailed a plot section should be? Most of the time large plot sections are nothing but "in universe" cruft anyway. And how about you expand the section if you think it's bad then? No of course that's always someone elses job when people dislike something. In the end it'll still be me who's working on this article and imroving it in a few weeks/months while everyone else is drive by editing while adding nothing of value, that's what happens 99% of the time when someone feels the need to complain about articles that I have made. Everyone else always tags and complains but does nothing to help with the supposed problems. The article is in no better shape after your edit than it was before, except now it runs the risk of being taged with a notability issue tag by more drive by editors.★Trekker (talk) 22:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think a notability question should arise, and we will be able to fend off one if it does given what's in the article as it stands. I'm not asking you to comply with my ideas of what a plot summary should look like. Wikipedia's collaborative, and we're all working towards the same goal. If I was more familiar with the series, sure I'd write it myself. But I'm not, so we have to figure out something in the meantime. It's not gone forever, just temporarily removed until a better version can be written. I'm not trying to come out and say the article was a piece of garbage, but there were some needed improvements. Like I said above, we're all working toward the same goal. Calling me idiotic, my edits nonsense, and making me out to be an edit-warrer are not going to take the article forward. Etzedek24 (Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?) 22:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry for being so rude, I overreacted. I've been through this charade too many times. As for the plot, well as we've established I'm no good at plot summaries so I guess it's just going to have to be empty until some kind soul feels inclined to help out.★Trekker (talk) 23:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- @*Treker: No hard feelings, but thank you for the apology. It's more than I've gotten from a lot of editors. I know how it can feel. If you want to draft a version of a plot summary in your userspace, you can put it in when ready and I'll edit it as needed. Etzedek24 (Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?) 23:13, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah that's probably for the best.★Trekker (talk) 23:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think a notability question should arise, and we will be able to fend off one if it does given what's in the article as it stands. I'm not asking you to comply with my ideas of what a plot summary should look like. Wikipedia's collaborative, and we're all working towards the same goal. If I was more familiar with the series, sure I'd write it myself. But I'm not, so we have to figure out something in the meantime. It's not gone forever, just temporarily removed until a better version can be written. I'm not trying to come out and say the article was a piece of garbage, but there were some needed improvements. Like I said above, we're all working toward the same goal. Calling me idiotic, my edits nonsense, and making me out to be an edit-warrer are not going to take the article forward. Etzedek24 (Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?) 22:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- Why should I comply by your personal ideas of how long or detailed a plot section should be? Most of the time large plot sections are nothing but "in universe" cruft anyway. And how about you expand the section if you think it's bad then? No of course that's always someone elses job when people dislike something. In the end it'll still be me who's working on this article and imroving it in a few weeks/months while everyone else is drive by editing while adding nothing of value, that's what happens 99% of the time when someone feels the need to complain about articles that I have made. Everyone else always tags and complains but does nothing to help with the supposed problems. The article is in no better shape after your edit than it was before, except now it runs the risk of being taged with a notability issue tag by more drive by editors.★Trekker (talk) 22:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Third Opinion
editA WP:3O has been requested. Is there still a question? If so, what? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- No, we have resolved the issue. Thank you, though.Etzedek24 (Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?) 03:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC)