This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Demons of the Punjab 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 written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Are you sure about that? My impression was that both of these were flashback scenes from some time prior to Yasmin meeting the Doctor. 62.190.148.115 ( talk) 12:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Before another editor changes or challenges my reverts of Alex and GUTT, and so I am not accused of edit warring, I thought I'd quote the source directly here:
That is what the source says. Not that the episode ended "without the theme" or a new composition, but with a different musical arrangement of the same theme. To say it ended without the theme (like Rosa) is wrong. I understand that the arrangement is so unfamiliar that some of you may not "hear" it, or that you may not be familiar with the difference between composition and arrangement in music, so briefly: the theme is what Ron Grainer composed in 1963. All the variations that have occurred since are arrangements. There have been many special arrnagements done over the years, including one that aired in Australia only, using a didgeriedoo (pardon my spelling). If you want to call attention to the unusualness of this, we're already doing that. It looks like this may be a trend for series 11, and that can be talked about on the series 11 page, but shouldn't be harped on here in this article by refering to something that isn't directly related, like an episode where the theme isn't played at all or where no music is played at all. It's sort of trainspotting. ZarhanFastfire ( talk) 17:28, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
The episode's closing theme was arranged after the style of Punjabi music by series composer Segun Akinola, who shared photos of the musicians who performed it on his Twitter feed. The bold part was removed with the following explanation:
I'm afraid I don't have any idea what you are talking about. What is "imprudent" about including the information that I included? Why is it better to include different information from the Twitter posts than what I included, at the same time as you saying the same citation is something "I just can't rely on" when it's a perfectly reliable source for the rest? Pray tell what is wrong with the style and tone? The word "photos"? It's not word-for-word from the source, but nearly. If you have a problem with the style and tone, suggest an improvement. If you think it's inappropriate explain why. What are these questions of proper relevance to which you allude but do not spell out? If you want to add the orchestra and other information as you suggest, do it yourself. As it stands you have given no reason for removing the information as presented other than you don't like it. ZarhanFastfire ( talk) 03:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
According to Sebastian James, this sentence is poorer, because I have merged two sentences with a comma after 7.8/10 and turned verb states into a present participle with a colon. This is grammatical and I see nothing "poor" about it. You may not like it, but that's not a reason to revert it. "The critics consensus states" is ungrammatical unless you put the words "critics consensus" in quotes to show that's what was written on RT. The way I had done it is how it's usually done on most TV show articles (or at any rate is how I've typically written it before, so that both items of information are shown to have the same source. I've been writing in English pretty effectively since about 1996, so I know my way around clauses, and I don't accept that the way I rewrote the sentence was poor on one editor's say-so. However, if a consensus of other editors tell me my version is poor, I'll rethink how I write these in future. Here's an alternate version:
Maybe the problem is there were too many commas and "ands" in the original sentence. ZarhanFastfire ( talk) 16:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
too many commas and "ands" in the original sentence.Also, this looks vain and it is not collaborative:
I don't accept that the way I rewrote the sentence was poor on one editor's say-so.The "one editor" may be right, it's better if you take heed of one's advice. The critics consensus is not ungrammatical, if it was, then we wouldn't use it, or at least, we would always use it in qutoes. Sebastian James ( talk) 16:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't accept that the way I rewrote the sentence was poor on one editor's say-so.". And I have never stated that you have to agree with me for collaboration nor
calling other people names, saying their work is "useless", etc.. You are just unnecessarily changing the subject (
he thinks he's punishing me). I don't know you, why would I bother to "punish" you? You have to reach a consensus before publishing this edit, that's it, but you will still continue this thing it seems. 95% of the time I edit TV/Film articles, and I have never seen "aggregate score" instead of approval rating, if that's what I'm "confusing", then maybe we should change them all to aggregate score. All I see is an editor who is trying desperately to make a fuss, and I'm only here for a consensus. Sebastian James ( talk) 18:50, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Demons of the Punjab 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 written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Are you sure about that? My impression was that both of these were flashback scenes from some time prior to Yasmin meeting the Doctor. 62.190.148.115 ( talk) 12:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Before another editor changes or challenges my reverts of Alex and GUTT, and so I am not accused of edit warring, I thought I'd quote the source directly here:
That is what the source says. Not that the episode ended "without the theme" or a new composition, but with a different musical arrangement of the same theme. To say it ended without the theme (like Rosa) is wrong. I understand that the arrangement is so unfamiliar that some of you may not "hear" it, or that you may not be familiar with the difference between composition and arrangement in music, so briefly: the theme is what Ron Grainer composed in 1963. All the variations that have occurred since are arrangements. There have been many special arrnagements done over the years, including one that aired in Australia only, using a didgeriedoo (pardon my spelling). If you want to call attention to the unusualness of this, we're already doing that. It looks like this may be a trend for series 11, and that can be talked about on the series 11 page, but shouldn't be harped on here in this article by refering to something that isn't directly related, like an episode where the theme isn't played at all or where no music is played at all. It's sort of trainspotting. ZarhanFastfire ( talk) 17:28, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
The episode's closing theme was arranged after the style of Punjabi music by series composer Segun Akinola, who shared photos of the musicians who performed it on his Twitter feed. The bold part was removed with the following explanation:
I'm afraid I don't have any idea what you are talking about. What is "imprudent" about including the information that I included? Why is it better to include different information from the Twitter posts than what I included, at the same time as you saying the same citation is something "I just can't rely on" when it's a perfectly reliable source for the rest? Pray tell what is wrong with the style and tone? The word "photos"? It's not word-for-word from the source, but nearly. If you have a problem with the style and tone, suggest an improvement. If you think it's inappropriate explain why. What are these questions of proper relevance to which you allude but do not spell out? If you want to add the orchestra and other information as you suggest, do it yourself. As it stands you have given no reason for removing the information as presented other than you don't like it. ZarhanFastfire ( talk) 03:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
According to Sebastian James, this sentence is poorer, because I have merged two sentences with a comma after 7.8/10 and turned verb states into a present participle with a colon. This is grammatical and I see nothing "poor" about it. You may not like it, but that's not a reason to revert it. "The critics consensus states" is ungrammatical unless you put the words "critics consensus" in quotes to show that's what was written on RT. The way I had done it is how it's usually done on most TV show articles (or at any rate is how I've typically written it before, so that both items of information are shown to have the same source. I've been writing in English pretty effectively since about 1996, so I know my way around clauses, and I don't accept that the way I rewrote the sentence was poor on one editor's say-so. However, if a consensus of other editors tell me my version is poor, I'll rethink how I write these in future. Here's an alternate version:
Maybe the problem is there were too many commas and "ands" in the original sentence. ZarhanFastfire ( talk) 16:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
too many commas and "ands" in the original sentence.Also, this looks vain and it is not collaborative:
I don't accept that the way I rewrote the sentence was poor on one editor's say-so.The "one editor" may be right, it's better if you take heed of one's advice. The critics consensus is not ungrammatical, if it was, then we wouldn't use it, or at least, we would always use it in qutoes. Sebastian James ( talk) 16:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't accept that the way I rewrote the sentence was poor on one editor's say-so.". And I have never stated that you have to agree with me for collaboration nor
calling other people names, saying their work is "useless", etc.. You are just unnecessarily changing the subject (
he thinks he's punishing me). I don't know you, why would I bother to "punish" you? You have to reach a consensus before publishing this edit, that's it, but you will still continue this thing it seems. 95% of the time I edit TV/Film articles, and I have never seen "aggregate score" instead of approval rating, if that's what I'm "confusing", then maybe we should change them all to aggregate score. All I see is an editor who is trying desperately to make a fuss, and I'm only here for a consensus. Sebastian James ( talk) 18:50, 28 November 2018 (UTC)