Talk:Thea: The Awakening

Template in reception

I think {{Video game reviews}} is making the small reception section way too squished to the left, and it really doesn't add anything useful. As the template itself says, "This template is not required." If necessary, the scores could be added via prose without squishing the rest of the text. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:52, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

It looks fine on my end, at least on my screen and on the vector legacy skin. If it looks too squished on another skin(s) then sure, we can just add the scores in prose. By the way, the level 3 warning template is unwarranted. You could've just pinged me here. Or at most, a level 1 warning. LightKeyDarkBlade (talk) 18:38, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring warnings don't come in tiered levels, and you have a history of trying to force this optional template into articles: Special:Diff/1113044060, Special:Diff/1113057725, Special:Diff/1088482814. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:28, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

A "history" that occurred only once and only for that article, where the other user did not handle it well at all. You can check all of my talk page history and past contributions. I "forced" it because that user did not give any clear and valid reasoning at first, i.e. no edit summary for the first removal and a vague "unnecessary" statement for that second revert. So I don't believe I was the one at fault. Not to mention that user has an actual history of edit warring and disruptive editing. But that's another topic. LightKeyDarkBlade (talk) 16:52, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

How did I "not handle it well at all"? I should've given an edit summary in May. You didn't give an edit summary when added it originally. You added it back in September including "User is also known to be disruptive" which was uncivil. You took it to edit warring noticeboard but no violation.[1] "unnecessary" wasn't the only part of that edit summary, in full it was "remove unnecessary tiny table again", identifying that it was unnecessary because of its size. After making an edit introducing the template and noticing it was reverted, you could've started a discussion on the talk page where I would've explained further, edit summaries aren't place for detail, please see WP:BRD. In 2nd Sept edit summary I gave an essay and guideline. Disagree I have "an actual history of edit warring and disruptive editing". Please don't repeat claims without evidence again. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 18:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

This is out of topic. But if you want to go there, sure.

Per WP:BRD that you cited, my first edit was a bold edit. I didn't enter anything extra in the edit summary but you could see that it was in the reception section, and it wasn't a controversial edit. You made the first revert, without any reason at all and without letting me know. With that being the case in addition to what I saw in your talk page, what did you expect me to infer from it? How could I assume WP:GOODFAITH? Therefore, it's fair that I made the revert stating that there was no explanation for the previous removal and that you were known to be disruptive (which was based on your talk page history).

Per WP:BRD again, "consider reverting only when necessary" and "when reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed". You did not give any reason at all in your first revert and you weren't specific with your reasons in your second revert. NinjaRobotPirate's reason is a much more valid and clearer reason than yours. "remove unnecessary tiny table again" versus "There's no reason to put that giant template next to such a small reception section"? Ironic that they were opposite reasons but I believe the difference is clear. I even assumed good faith with NinjaRobotPirate and this has nothing to do with their status as an admin (even though they seemingly assume bad faith with me for some reason).

So yes, you did not handle it well at all. You expect me to follow WP:BRDD in BRD when you didn't even follow WP:BRDR. I've also mentioned in my second revert to "Give a valid reason or discuss at talk page." You didn't discuss at talk page and used the edit summary instead. But here you're saying that I "could've started a discussion on the talk page where [you] would've explained further, edit summaries aren't place for detail". You're blatantly contradicting yourself. Do you prefer using edit summaries or do you prefer discussions at talk page? If you had truly cared for the quality of the article (and any other article at Wikipedia), you would've explained your reverts clearly to me by whatever means necessary.

Before you say anything about me assuming bad faith with you, pointing out your past disruptive behaviour was not "uncivil". These are also not mere "claims" when there's clear evidence on your talk page, to the point where a final warning was even given in the past. You can't "disagree" with this and you've already "disagreed" twice. LightKeyDarkBlade (talk) 14:02, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, template shouldn't be used when only including the aggregator and the prose isn't developed, like there should be multiple paragraphs before a summary is needed. Indagate (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

• Not needed for its own sake. The Metacritic rating can be adequately described in prose without the sidebar. czar 20:00, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
• If it was only Metacritic that had a score, I'd agree with removal. But if Metacritic was somehow the only review score for reception, I'd also question notability. It seems the review prose has at least 3 reviews mentions that have scores. The scores are in the prose currently, which is actually discouraged by MOS:VG. Why not add the other scores to the template? -- ferret (talk) 16:46, 29 October 2022 (UTC)