User talk:Ryulong/Archive 69
 | This 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. |
| Archive 65 | ← | Archive 67 | Archive 68 | Archive 69 | Archive 70 | Archive 71 | → | Archive 75 |
Face Off
About the edits you reverted on the Face Off (season 2) article, what if I edit the season 1 article as well? Because that was my original intention. Thief12 (talk) 03:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Your edits just did not look good. They did not match any reality TV show article, either. The status quo is better. This is an article on an individual season, with all of the judge and host information on another page. Contestants in or out of the competition are never listed in a separate list section, and the table provides that information in a much easier to read format. Foundation Challenges never have top looks or bottom looks, just one winner. And finally, using "WINNER" in the prose is unprofessional.—Ryulong (竜龙) 04:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- I was basing my changes on the Top Chef season articles, but popular reality shows like Next Food Network Star and Project Runway have similar looks, even using the word "WINNER" which you say is "unprofessional". As for the Foundation Challenges, in the first episode, they named two Top looks and two Bottom looks, and then chose Jerry as the winner. The second episode had no Foundation Challenge, but I think they did the same on the third one. But it's okay, anyway. I just thought that the edits would improve the article and make it look better. Thief12 (talk) 15:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- So, those other articles are not written in a professional manner. And I do not think your changes are beneficial to the page. The tables are better than lists to show who is and is not in the competition, still.—Ryulong (竜龙) 19:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Whether they are professional or not, that's debatable. You think they aren't, I think they are. The fact is that you said there weren't "any reality TV show article" with looks similar to the ones I did, and I just gave you examples of three shows that did. So it's not a matter of "status quo" or consistency with other shows, but a matter of which one you personally like. Which is fine by me, since I don't think the changes I made were that drastic one way or the other. Finally, about the tables vs. lists issue you mentioned, I didn't replace any table with a list. I just separated what is the contestant personal info (name, age, hometown) from the table that shows the contestant progress. The table that showed who's in the competition was left virtually in the same way as it was. The same format of having a list/table with the personal info and the table with the contestant progress can be seen in the season articles for shows like America's Next Top Model, Top Chef, The Next Iron Chef, The Next Food Network Star, and Top Shot, among many others. All of those even use a similar prose using the word "Winner" (a word which even a lot of the reality show hosts and websites use to announce the "winner" of each week, so I don't see how that's unprofessional). But again, it's your call. You've worked on these Face Off pages for more time than I have. I just felt like clarifying a few of the comments in your reply. Thief12 (talk) 22:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- I was saying that having "WINNER" in all capital letters was unprofessional. Anywa, it is in my opinion that your changes to Face Off (season 2) were unnecessary. There need not be so many different sections describing the outcome of the contest as there are on articles like for the Top Model series. I will concede and re-introduce some of your changes to the article, but I believe that we need not say in two different sections who has been eliminated.—Ryulong (竜龙) 00:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with ditching the caps, if we are to say "Winner". I also think that indenting some of the outcomes from each episode, like I did with the first episode, makes it more readable and understandable. I don't know if you agree. As for the repetition of information about the contestants, the idea usually is to have a section for the contestant personal info, sometimes with their full names... and a second section just to record the progress where they usually show only the first name or nickname, which is how they are usually identified in the shows. However, while the show is running, some shows like to reflect who's left and who's out in both sections. But that's open to discussion and adjustments. Let me know what you think. Thief12 (talk) 02:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- I did a mix in the two formatting styles, keeping what I liked from what you did and incorporating my own new changes.—Ryulong (竜龙) 02:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with ditching the caps, if we are to say "Winner". I also think that indenting some of the outcomes from each episode, like I did with the first episode, makes it more readable and understandable. I don't know if you agree. As for the repetition of information about the contestants, the idea usually is to have a section for the contestant personal info, sometimes with their full names... and a second section just to record the progress where they usually show only the first name or nickname, which is how they are usually identified in the shows. However, while the show is running, some shows like to reflect who's left and who's out in both sections. But that's open to discussion and adjustments. Let me know what you think. Thief12 (talk) 02:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- I was saying that having "WINNER" in all capital letters was unprofessional. Anywa, it is in my opinion that your changes to Face Off (season 2) were unnecessary. There need not be so many different sections describing the outcome of the contest as there are on articles like for the Top Model series. I will concede and re-introduce some of your changes to the article, but I believe that we need not say in two different sections who has been eliminated.—Ryulong (竜龙) 00:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Whether they are professional or not, that's debatable. You think they aren't, I think they are. The fact is that you said there weren't "any reality TV show article" with looks similar to the ones I did, and I just gave you examples of three shows that did. So it's not a matter of "status quo" or consistency with other shows, but a matter of which one you personally like. Which is fine by me, since I don't think the changes I made were that drastic one way or the other. Finally, about the tables vs. lists issue you mentioned, I didn't replace any table with a list. I just separated what is the contestant personal info (name, age, hometown) from the table that shows the contestant progress. The table that showed who's in the competition was left virtually in the same way as it was. The same format of having a list/table with the personal info and the table with the contestant progress can be seen in the season articles for shows like America's Next Top Model, Top Chef, The Next Iron Chef, The Next Food Network Star, and Top Shot, among many others. All of those even use a similar prose using the word "Winner" (a word which even a lot of the reality show hosts and websites use to announce the "winner" of each week, so I don't see how that's unprofessional). But again, it's your call. You've worked on these Face Off pages for more time than I have. I just felt like clarifying a few of the comments in your reply. Thief12 (talk) 22:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- So, those other articles are not written in a professional manner. And I do not think your changes are beneficial to the page. The tables are better than lists to show who is and is not in the competition, still.—Ryulong (竜龙) 19:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- I was basing my changes on the Top Chef season articles, but popular reality shows like Next Food Network Star and Project Runway have similar looks, even using the word "WINNER" which you say is "unprofessional". As for the Foundation Challenges, in the first episode, they named two Top looks and two Bottom looks, and then chose Jerry as the winner. The second episode had no Foundation Challenge, but I think they did the same on the third one. But it's okay, anyway. I just thought that the edits would improve the article and make it look better. Thief12 (talk) 15:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Eureka Seven AO move
I checked the website but the article wrote "eureka seven ao" in all caps along with no colon. I hope you do know the ain character is named Ao. Are you absolutely sure its spelled like that?Lucia Black (talk) 17:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- It is read as "Eureka Seven A Oh" so we should not have the article at "Eureka Seven Ao". Also, the colon is a grammatical figure that indicates a subtitle. It's "Eureka Seven: Astral Ocean", with the "Astral Ocean" abbreviated as "AO". The fact that the lead character is named "Ao", gives the title several layers of puns.—Ryulong (竜龙) 23:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Grammatical figure isnt so important aswell as pronounciation, especially considering thhats not really our call. When it comes to titles such as these we have to be careful. Also, youre not providing much information. The fact that the series has several puns shows how delicate we need to take it. Your reason based on the official site. How?Lucia Black (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- The A and the O are pronounced separately, according to everything in print and in video form concerning the series. The title is fine. It should not have been "Ao" because it is not read as "Ao", and the name in Japanese uses the capital letters "AO", in addition to those being short for "Astral Ocean", and despite the fact that Japan does not use a colon, that does not mean we should not either. It is a grammatical figure that separates the title ("Eureka Seven") from the subtitle ("AO").—Ryulong (竜龙) 03:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Your edits are too subjective. And where iss your source? All of this sounds subjective...Lucia Black (talk) 03:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- What do you mean "subjective"? I'm using the Japanese pronunciation of "エウレカセブンAO" which is not "Eureka Sebun Ao" but "Eureka Sebun Ei Oo". And to divide "Eureka Seven" from "AO" I have used a colon, which is a common grammatical figure in English that denotes a subtitle. What is your issue exactly? Is it the fact that I have properly capitalized "AO" as it is an initialism rather than the name of the lead character? Or is it the fact that I have used proper English grammar to translate the title of the show?—Ryulong (竜龙) 04:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- I mean its based on your interpretation. Youre not providing the reason you gave when you moved it. Is there any furigana foor "Ao" to be sure? And we dont even know if its a subtitle. That happens alot in japanese and often english adding a colon is a 50-50 chance they will include it. If it was Eureka Seven ~Ao~ or Eureka Seven (Ao). you dont apply grammar in a title.Lucia Black (talk) 05:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- If you watch the promotional video, they say "Ei Ō" and not "Ao". And most reliable sources appear to be using "Eureka Seven: AO" anyway, and not "Eureka Seven Ao". "Eureka Seven AO" is an alternative, but it is not grammatically correct. Just run it through Google.—Ryulong (竜龙) 06:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Also, learn how to indent in conversations.—Ryulong (竜龙) 06:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- And you've only made one minor edit to the page. Why is this an issue for you? Just let it go and let the editors who give a damn about the page build it up.—Ryulong (竜龙) 06:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- And finally, if you need sources: Crunchyroll, Crunchyroll, Siliconera.—Ryulong (竜龙) 06:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- You could've made this easier and less uncivil, I hope you keep edit count as a valid argument.Lucia Black (talk) 06:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- You made one minor edit to the page and you're on my case about a page move. It seems unnecessary.—Ryulong (竜龙) 08:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thats not the point. A move is a big deal and you know better than anyone how uncivil it is to make edit count a valid argument. And the easiest thing you couldve done was provide sources from the beginning. But instead the reason was said to be in the official site which provided less. And the colon was based on your own understanding. So sorrry if this is a hassle but we must always be sure. Moves arent so revertable, so i brought the discussion to you.Lucia Black (talk) 15:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- The move was minimal. And I am not basing it on your total edit count, but I am questioning why you are making such a mountain out of this molehill when you only changed the size of the image thumbnail. I made the move because I saw that reliable sources (the Japanese website, the Japanese pronunciation of the name, several English language websites) use the name "Eureka Seven AO" either including or excluding the colon after "Seven". Because it is a part of English grammar, I put it in there, as some websites are including it in the title (namely Crunchyroll). Now, would you please stop beating the dead horse?—Ryulong (竜龙) 19:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thats not the point. A move is a big deal and you know better than anyone how uncivil it is to make edit count a valid argument. And the easiest thing you couldve done was provide sources from the beginning. But instead the reason was said to be in the official site which provided less. And the colon was based on your own understanding. So sorrry if this is a hassle but we must always be sure. Moves arent so revertable, so i brought the discussion to you.Lucia Black (talk) 15:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- You made one minor edit to the page and you're on my case about a page move. It seems unnecessary.—Ryulong (竜龙) 08:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- You could've made this easier and less uncivil, I hope you keep edit count as a valid argument.Lucia Black (talk) 06:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- I mean its based on your interpretation. Youre not providing the reason you gave when you moved it. Is there any furigana foor "Ao" to be sure? And we dont even know if its a subtitle. That happens alot in japanese and often english adding a colon is a 50-50 chance they will include it. If it was Eureka Seven ~Ao~ or Eureka Seven (Ao). you dont apply grammar in a title.Lucia Black (talk) 05:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- What do you mean "subjective"? I'm using the Japanese pronunciation of "エウレカセブンAO" which is not "Eureka Sebun Ao" but "Eureka Sebun Ei Oo". And to divide "Eureka Seven" from "AO" I have used a colon, which is a common grammatical figure in English that denotes a subtitle. What is your issue exactly? Is it the fact that I have properly capitalized "AO" as it is an initialism rather than the name of the lead character? Or is it the fact that I have used proper English grammar to translate the title of the show?—Ryulong (竜龙) 04:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Your edits are too subjective. And where iss your source? All of this sounds subjective...Lucia Black (talk) 03:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- The A and the O are pronounced separately, according to everything in print and in video form concerning the series. The title is fine. It should not have been "Ao" because it is not read as "Ao", and the name in Japanese uses the capital letters "AO", in addition to those being short for "Astral Ocean", and despite the fact that Japan does not use a colon, that does not mean we should not either. It is a grammatical figure that separates the title ("Eureka Seven") from the subtitle ("AO").—Ryulong (竜龙) 03:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Grammatical figure isnt so important aswell as pronounciation, especially considering thhats not really our call. When it comes to titles such as these we have to be careful. Also, youre not providing much information. The fact that the series has several puns shows how delicate we need to take it. Your reason based on the official site. How?Lucia Black (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
All im sayin is you couldve been alot easier. Instead of basing it out of grammar you couldve said reliable source (something not subjective). Its not a mountain out of a Molehill. For one the main character is named "Ao". And i think is heavily uncivil to focus on the edit count. If you made one edit and then i make a potentially contraversial move and you put it in discussion, im pretty sure you would find it uncivil too if i brought it up.Lucia Black (talk) 03:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- I told you that the title is pronounced "A.O." (エイオー), and not "Ao" (アオ). And that is the last god damn thing I am going to say about this. The move is not controversial. You pestering me about it for the past two days is.—Ryulong (竜龙) 03:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- It was potentially contraversial. And the point was you werent making this any easier. You initially based it on subjective reasons, which got me even more skeptical, and who could blame me? No reliable source turned up until the very end which was very importantto know in the beginning.Lucia Black (talk) 03:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
The amazing race leg fonts
I had not made an edit yet for any TAR Seasons, and I need to ask your permission for editing the 20 USA seasons, 4 Asia Seasons, 3 Latin American Seasons, 1 Isreal Season, 1 Australia Season and 2 China Seasons. I will only change the fonts that is simillar to the Isreal 2 format. Besides I will aware the grammar. I will also edit the penalty notes to follow up the latest season format. Can I edit that? (TranceX (talk) 12:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC))
- I do not understand what you mean by "fonts". I think that instead of changing every article, you should just make HaMerotz LaMillion 2 in line with the others.—Ryulong (竜龙) 19:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Your attitude.
Hello Ryulong. Your attitude towards me is a little rude. I would do the changes if I hds the time to but since I didn't, I just undid it to make it one version. Understand that I contribute significantly to this as well and it is me that usually makes the changes from Japanese to English.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 519,172,125) 02:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- It would have helped more if you just finished doing the changes rather than reverting him. Maybe he was going to come back to it? How will we ever know?—Ryulong (竜龙) 02:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't have the time to go through and change them though. I only had 15 seconds of time left before I had to go so reverting was the only option for me.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 519,227,039) 11:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- So you could have left it and gone back to fix it later.—Ryulong (竜龙) 19:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- That's the problem with me I wanted to go fix it later but if the beginning of the summary uses English, I will have a tendency to skip it under the assumption that it's already changed. By reverting it and checking on it later, I will avoid this issue of mine. On top of that, changes are visible instantly and there could be reader who, if they read the summary, can get confused when they read it while there's a mix of Japanese and English names.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 519,327,789) 21:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- It is easier to just leave it and add to it later than it is to revert it outright.—Ryulong (竜龙) 21:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry for the delay in responding. I am particularly busy finishing up Cyberbot. If it makes you any happier, I won't do it again but please don't be so snippy to me in your edit summaries if I did you don't agree with. :)—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 519,338,268) 22:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- It is easier to just leave it and add to it later than it is to revert it outright.—Ryulong (竜龙) 21:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- That's the problem with me I wanted to go fix it later but if the beginning of the summary uses English, I will have a tendency to skip it under the assumption that it's already changed. By reverting it and checking on it later, I will avoid this issue of mine. On top of that, changes are visible instantly and there could be reader who, if they read the summary, can get confused when they read it while there's a mix of Japanese and English names.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 519,327,789) 21:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- So you could have left it and gone back to fix it later.—Ryulong (竜龙) 19:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't have the time to go through and change them though. I only had 15 seconds of time left before I had to go so reverting was the only option for me.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 519,227,039) 11:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)