Asqueladd

Archive: I · II · III · IV · V · VI · VII · VIII · IX BS-0This person does not understand Bullshit (or understands it with considerable difficulties or does not wish to communicate in Bullshit). This user may blank useless notifications (i.e: notifications for deletion of a void category) from this talk page without further notice Hi! Comment below. The message stacking is top-bottom.. .

Manticore (2022 film)

¡Hola Asqueladd!

=> yes, I object you removed verification of claims, to begin with

I apologise for having upset you again, mate. Could you just explain to me briefly which verification of the claims I've removed in that revision, por favor? Just so that I know in future... 😉

¡Cuidate! Szagory (talk) 15:46, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

@Szagory: Inline verification immediately after a claim is the way to go. As per Help:Referencing for beginners (despite me thinking you are no beginner), inline citations "are generally added either directly following the fact that they support, or at the end of the sentence that they support, following any punctuation." --Asqueladd (talk) 15:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I've checked the changes you've made in that revision:

On the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, 100% of 8 critics' reviews are positive, with an average rating of 9.8/10.^[1]

There's absolutely no need for reference with a link to RT page when using Template:Rotten Tomatoes prose - just take a look at the documentation of that template, mate.

Besides, I also added Template:Rotten Tomatoes to the end of the article... 😎

Szagory (talk) 15:59, 4 May 2024 (UTC) Szagory (talk) 15:59, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

@Szagory: There's absolutely no need for reference with a link to RT page when using Template:Rotten Tomatoes prose Only in case you used the Reference? parametre (which requires RT ID on Wikidata) to generate a reference of its own, which you did not. I also added Template:Rotten Tomatoes to the end of the article As stated below, as per WP:ELDUP, that is not the way to go...--Asqueladd (talk) 16:04, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

@Szagory: Regarding your modus operandi vis-à-vis the external links section, I suggest you to take a look at WP:ELDUP where it is explained that "Sites that have been used as sources in the creation of an article should be cited in the article and linked as references, either in-line or in a references section. Links to these source sites are not "external links" for the purposes of this guideline, and should not normally be duplicated in an external links section."--Asqueladd (talk) 15:56, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

=> Links to these source sites are not "external links" for the purposes of this guideline, and should not normally be duplicated in an external links section

But that's my point - first of all, when using Template:Rotten Tomatoes prose there's no need for reference with that template.

And secondly, just take a look at countless other pages related to films - they all have {{Metacritic film|manticore_2022|Manticore}} and {{Rotten Tomatoes|manticore_2022|Manticore}} in "External links" (obviously with correct film IDs).

I'm not sure that you've done the right thing in removing those links from the article... 😕

Szagory (talk) 16:09, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

@Szagory: If links are cited in the body they should not be duplicated in the external links section as per WP:ELDUP. According to WP:ELMIN the EL section should be kept minimal. Under the purview of those guidelines, I don't think that those "countless" examples you mention abide to those guidelines, what else can I tell you... Well yes, I can tell you that the duplication resembles to spamming to a certain extent (Let me clarify that as I owe nothing to imdb.com nor rottentomatoes I presume yo do neither).--Asqueladd (talk) 16:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

=> Only in case you used the Reference? parametre (which requires RT ID on Wikidata) to generate a reference of its own, which you did not.

That's not correct - when you don't specify film ID in Template:Rotten Tomatoes, then Wikidata for the film must already include identifier for the film in RT.

If however you provide film's name in "{ {Rotten Tomatoes | ID} }", you can just add a link that way - no need to wait for Wikidata to be updated. 😉

Just take a look at The Cuckoo's Curse#External links where I also added The Cuckoo's Curse at Rotten Tomatoes without waiting for Wikidata to be updated. And now are you telling me that if the text for that film's approval rating was written by hand and included a citation with link to RT, you would really prefer the readers to locate that link somewhere in "References"? When all other film pages include links to IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic in "External links"? Come on, mate - that wouldn't be convenient!

Szagory (talk) 16:27, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

=> Sites that have been used as sources in the creation of an article should be cited in the article and linked as references, either in-line or in a references section. Links to these source sites are not "external links" for the purposes of this guideline, and should not normally be duplicated in an external links section.

It's NOT the best practice to write approval rating for a film by hand - having to write all that stuff "According to the review aggregation website Rotten Tomatoes, Manticore has a 100% approval rating based on 7 reviews from critics, with an average rating of 9.8/10.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Manticore|url=https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/manticore_2022|language=en |website=[[RottenTomatoes]]|access-date=28 December 2022}}</ref>''" again and again for every film! Template:Rotten Tomatoes prose should be used for that purpose instead.

And there's no need for reference with link to RT to be provided with Template:Rotten Tomatoes prose - either you use short form "" (when Wikidata knows film IDs for that film) or you use "Asqueladd at Rotten Tomatoes".

I'm sorry, but what I'm trying to say is: the way I added Template:Rotten Tomatoes prose and Template:Rotten Tomatoes was correct and countless other pages follow the same convention. And you insisting that the link you added when writing approval rating should be preserved, and what's more shouldn't be duplicated - that's just not right... 😒

Szagory (talk) 16:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC) Szagory (talk) 16:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

@Szagory: now are you telling me that if the text for that film's approval rating was written by hand and included a citation with link to RT, you would really prefer the readers to locate that link somewhere in "References", yes, that is more or less what I am telling you. More comprehensively:

• Links verifying content in the body of the article should be referenced inline in the body immediately after the claim or after the end of the full sentence (as per Help:Referencing for beginners and WP:ELDUP)
• no duplication of such links in "External links" section (as per WP:ELDUP)
• As a guiding principle, number of links in the External links section should be aimed to be kept at a minimum. "The less, the better". (as per WP:ELMIN)
• No, I don't care about counterexamples, because mentioned guidelines suggest this modus operandi--Asqueladd (talk) 16:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

=> yes, that is more or less what I am telling you.

=> No, I don't care about counterexamples, because mentioned guidelines suggest this modus operandi

Mate, just take a look at countless other film pages - by way of example, Dream Scenario. Check how approval ratings in Dream_Scenario#Critical_reception are written there (and also just imagine having to duplicate all those lines for RT and Metacritic every time you want to add critical reception to some new film page!).

And notice what links are specified in Dream_Scenario#External_links.

And I'll never EVER believe that what's done on countless pages (i.e. using Template:Rotten Tomatoes prose and Template:Rotten Tomatoes is suddenly bad or inappropriate. Just ask yourself this: why are those templates provided at all if apparently everybody is supposed to follow your modus operandi and type all those words on every edited page again and again?

So, I'm not to going to insist on my edits with those templates to be reinstated - and playing editing policeman would be just silly. But I'm going to continue doing things the way other Wikipedia users have been doing them (those templates are supposed to cut down on having to repeat the same text again and again, for Heaven's sake!).

Have a nice evening / Buenas tardes,

Szagory (talk) 17:05, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

@Szagory: I feel that we are running in circles. I have provided you with a series of Wikipedia guidelines laiding out a modus operandi. No, I don't care in the slightest about providing readers with a directory of websites (particularly a directory of profit-driven websites) at the end of any article which I think it is discouraged anyways as per those guidelines, no matter how many counterexamples you can find. That's all. I respect your tastes, but unless you bring a sound policy-backed rationale, I am not willing to give up on this and you will possibly be undone again if I notice such kind of change in my watchlist (although I am not going to WP:WIKIHOUND you either). Have a nice day you too, and, as always, until next time.--Asqueladd (talk) 17:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Just to mention a couple of other things in your latest edits:

=> Raquel gave the film 75 with points ('good').

That doesn't sound right, neither does it seem to be grammatically correct. Why "with"? 🤔

=> He rents a new apartment on the outskirts of Madrid where he practices a rim job on Diana, who gets the news of her father's sudden death.

Use of singular indefinite article ("a rim job") here is not appropriate - it denotes a single act of anilingus. Surely Julián hasn't rented a new apartment just for one sexual act there, and presumably neither was just one single rim job "practised" (i.e. performed with regularity, so more than once) in that apartment, right?

More correct would be something like: "where he performs anilingus on Diana". 😉

But why did you feel obligated to mention that salacious detail in the text at all? Is anal sex in any material way significant for WP:Plot (which is supposed to be concise and brief)?

Also, what's the connection between anal sex being performed on Diana and her getting the new of her dad's death?

Szagory (talk) 19:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

About the latter, as I stated in the edit summary, IIRC (it's been a while since I watched the film) the character gets the news about her father's death (or an aggravating condition that led to his death or a phone call implicitly suggesting something along those lines) in that scene. I don't like to explain things twice or thrice. is supposed to be concise and brief The text is actually more brief, straightforward and to the point now in that regard than before (6 words now vs 9 words before). In addition, at 522 words, the plot section as a whole currently falls within the size recommendation as per WP:FILMPLOT and it still could be augmented with some details without failing to abide to those prescriptions.--Asqueladd (talk) 09:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)