Jump to content

Talk:Journey into Night

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Move

[edit]

@AlexTheWhovian: I agree, this article needs work, but can you please move the draft into the main space so editors can make improvements? ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:33, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I deliberately moved it to the draft space because there's no excuse for a terrible article; why would I agree to move it back without any substantial changes? Editors are more than able to make improvements here, are they not? -- AlexTW 15:04, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@AlexTheWhovian: ... not if they don't know to look in the draft space... ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:13, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So, we should have terribly-formatted articles just so that people are aware that the article exists? No, that's not how Wikipedia works at all. Post on article talk pages. Season 2, TV show article. Include a hidden note in the redirect, one next to the episode title in the Season 2 article. That's how you make editors aware. -- AlexTW 22:19, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should be grateful that no one has marked the article for deletion because it's basically just a page with a bloated plot and not much else. I agree with moving to draft because no one wants to see 10 separate episode articles with just plot. Esuka323 (talk) 19:25, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you think I should be grateful, but we wouldn't delete this page, we'd just redirect to the season article. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:43, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's already been done; the main article redirects to the season article. I just provided further support by keeping this article here, instead of either requesting a deletion of the article or deleting all the content. -- AlexTW 00:59, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AlexTheWhovian: The plot has been trimmed, and there are multiple inline citations in the "Reception" section. This is an adequate stub. I'm asking you to please move this back into the main space. I am unable to do so myself. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:56, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I very strongly disagree. Reception has three sentences in a single line. This is still a plot-only article. There's no actual critical reception, just some ratings. No production information. No ratings information. Take a look at Game of Thrones and its article for the Season 7 premiere episode, Dragonstone (Game of Thrones). See how filled out that is. Now look back at this article. -- AlexTW 01:53, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I recognize what a developed article looks like. I've created many myself. But there's also nothing wrong with having stubs in the main space... ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:40, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Simply because stubs are acceptable to a degree, doesn't mean we should deliberately be creating them. -- AlexTW 02:58, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, if an editor is unable to make an episode article notable enough to exist on the mainspace, they really shouldn't try. It just creates more work for other editors. Not to mention there's nothing in the rules that states episode articles are mandatory, we really don't need huge bloated plot pages. Esuka323 (talk) 16:24, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moved back to draft. Multiple editors have expressed concerns over the article, and WP:CANVASS is not appreciated. -- AlexTW 14:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Galobtter: Are you comfortable moving this draft back into main space, too? AlexTheWhovian, if the page is moved, please don't move back into draft space without consensus, thanks. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If it is moved, this can be considered edit-warring against multiple editors. -- AlexTW 15:20, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are making this way, way more difficult than is necessary. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:21, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is it difficult because you don't like that I'm not the only editor disagreeing with it's main location? -- AlexTW 15:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:23, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It does remain true. -- AlexTW 15:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not seeing any editor disagreeing with the mainspace beside you. Valoem talk contrib 15:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is Esuka323 invisible? -- AlexTW 15:48, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read what Esuka323 wrote? Esuka323 does not believe an article with only a plot summary is ready. This article has been expanded with 4 additional sources and contains, a Production section which can be expanded, a ratings section showing over 2 million people watched it and 3 additional reviews. It isn't just a plot summary anymore. Valoem talk contrib 15:54, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On Graeme's talk page. If you don't mind me asking, why? It's just a page with a bloated plot summary. It's not notable enough as an article to exist on Wikipedia. I'm tempted to mark it for deletion if its not improved in the next few days. Emphasis mine. -- AlexTW 15:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the time stamps, he wrote that before improvement. Valoem talk contrib 15:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Missed the rest of this talk page too. You cannot assume their opinions if they have not been active since. Don't put actions in other people's inactivities. -- AlexTW 15:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Valoem and Galobtter: I'm frustrated enough to move on. Good luck, ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Best of luck. -- AlexTW 15:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the page still needs work doing to it, and not the lazy done in a few minutes kind to appease discussions here. The production section is still under developed, the critical response area too. The ratings section can be expanded with DVR ratings when available. There was promise of expansion on the admins talk page from another editor, but if this is "it", I'm really not impressed. And you're also right, people shouldn't make assumptions about people they don't know, that's rude. Esuka323 (talk) 18:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: Now that the AfC submission template has been added, and since you helped me with a history merge the other day, I'm wondering if you might have a moment to move this draft into the main space over the redirect? ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC) Never mind! Done. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:09, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

---Another Believer (Talk) 21:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"into" vs. "Into"

[edit]

Which is more appropriate? Do we go with HBO's official title ("Into"), or Wikipedia's manual of style ("into")? ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:51, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hl: Pinging so you're aware of this discussion. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:53, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why would Wikipedia's house style overrule the title given by a work's creators? — Hugh (talk) 02:07, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seems AlexTheWhovian prefers "into", as do I, based on my understanding of Wikipedia's manual of style. ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:42, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about what I prefer. HBO has its own preferred grammar, Wikipedia has its own preferred grammar. Wikipedia is not HBO, and therefore we use Wikipedia's guidelines for grammar. If you want to use HBO's guidelines for grammar, then work for HBO. -- AlexTW 04:37, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshot for infobox?

[edit]

Might someone be able to add a screenshot (under fair use) for the infobox? ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:52, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No S1 episode article has a screenshot. I'm not even sure that's what the Image field is for... I think it's only for logos and posters. Edit:
From the docs:

A non-free screenshot should be used only … if it is required to illustrate a crucial element of the episode that is the object of explicit, sourced analytical commentary and where that commentary is in genuine need of visual support.

— Hugh (talk) 02:12, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article move

[edit]

Article must go into Journey into Night no where else. Any move right now would delay the process. Valoem talk contrib 17:12, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am marking this section as resolved since the article is in correct space now. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:18, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good job to Net on how they moved it. That was definitely experienced work there. -- AlexTW 01:33, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Journey_into_Night&oldid=1207584053"