![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Can anyone say D.O.A? 2600:8800:784:8F00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D ( talk) 04:17, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
We never EVER point out that a band is all male, or even mixed gender. Why do we still make such a fuss over a band that happens to be all female? Band-Maid isn't notable just because of their gender. They are very talented people who are making really good music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:1245:3600:FC2D:7655:8C0F:9670 ( talk) 15:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
SomeGuyFromSouthCarolina (Correction:
User:Some Dude From North Carolina) screwed up the list formatting
[3]
Learning how markup actually works can be dull, so understandably many editors don't know that they should not mix different list types like that edit did, see the documentation
Help:List.
I kept the visible formatting change and corrected the bad markup with a minor edit.
[4]
My edit was reverted along with several other edits, and I hastily and mistakenly thought the erroneous markup had been restored, but the revert went further back than I realized and removed that mess too. So it should all be good now.
Sorry for the misunderstanding
User:Sundayclose. --
109.79.166.207 (
talk)
03:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
An editor changed the poster image from JPG to PNG. He gave no explanation for this change. ( File:Kate_(film).jpg to File:Kate_(film).png) The poster image is sourced from a JPG image originally http://www.impawards.com/2021/kate.html and anyone changing from one format to another should be able to explain why. As the image is largely photographic and was in JPG format in the first place there is no reason to change format, using PNG an option but certainly not a requirement. If the editor wanted a higher quality image they could have uploaded a higher quality JPG, to the same location ( File:Kate_(film).jpg). (Take the original image, edit it, resize it to the desired dimensions but with the JPG quality settings set at a very high level.) No format change necessary, no edit to this article Kate (film) even necessary.
When asked to explain his change he did not explain it and instead responded negatively. [5] This hostility is consistent with what I experienced with this editor before, he does not like to follow the simple rules and provided meaningful edit summaries, which might have avoided this problem from the start. He seems to take disagreements very personally, and gets hostile instead of discussing the matter. He continues to incorrectly assume that as an anonymous IP editor I cannot possibly be editing in good faith. His user page states that he is "No longer here" I wish that was true and I could continue edit this article like I did before he got here and made his unexplained changes. Mistakes happen, but other editors know how to disagree and discuss without so much hostility.
He eventually wrote the edit summary: "There is no such thing as using "JPG is better than PNG" when it comes to film posters. PNG is uploaded because it features the correct saturation and sharpness with reduced pixels (common sense)."
None of the improvements he wants require an image format change, all can be achieved while still using JPG. None of this was necessary, better explanation of his changes in the first place, or not making them at all could have avoided this. I strongly suggest he make any changes he believes are necessary to the existing image File:Kate_(film).jpg directly.
The guideline WP:PIFU says "JPEG for photographic images" and "PNG for everything else".
-- 109.76.198.55 ( talk) 14:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Deadline says the budget was $25 million. [7] The source is already referenced in the production section, but the budget figure has not been added to the text or the Infobox yet. -- 109.78.193.127 ( talk) 12:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
WP:GOODFAITH. An anon ip editor made a good faith effort to improve the article, specifically the character descriptions. [8] I looked at that edit and I looked at the cast section and thought "lets try and improve the article".
The character descriptions could be better, or they could be left out entirely (as many film articles do, and this article did until quite recently). Please improve the character descriptions. Even if things that happened in the plot are a "neutral fact" that does not make them good character descriptions, and it is better to keep the plot in the plot section. Please take the edits of the other anon and my edits as good faith suggestions that the Cast section could be better. I urge Sundayclose ( talk · contribs) to take a closer look and please do something, anything at all, to move the article forward in some he thinks might be an improvement. -- 109.76.206.80 ( talk) 15:40, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Can anyone say D.O.A? 2600:8800:784:8F00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D ( talk) 04:17, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
We never EVER point out that a band is all male, or even mixed gender. Why do we still make such a fuss over a band that happens to be all female? Band-Maid isn't notable just because of their gender. They are very talented people who are making really good music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:1245:3600:FC2D:7655:8C0F:9670 ( talk) 15:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
SomeGuyFromSouthCarolina (Correction:
User:Some Dude From North Carolina) screwed up the list formatting
[3]
Learning how markup actually works can be dull, so understandably many editors don't know that they should not mix different list types like that edit did, see the documentation
Help:List.
I kept the visible formatting change and corrected the bad markup with a minor edit.
[4]
My edit was reverted along with several other edits, and I hastily and mistakenly thought the erroneous markup had been restored, but the revert went further back than I realized and removed that mess too. So it should all be good now.
Sorry for the misunderstanding
User:Sundayclose. --
109.79.166.207 (
talk)
03:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
An editor changed the poster image from JPG to PNG. He gave no explanation for this change. ( File:Kate_(film).jpg to File:Kate_(film).png) The poster image is sourced from a JPG image originally http://www.impawards.com/2021/kate.html and anyone changing from one format to another should be able to explain why. As the image is largely photographic and was in JPG format in the first place there is no reason to change format, using PNG an option but certainly not a requirement. If the editor wanted a higher quality image they could have uploaded a higher quality JPG, to the same location ( File:Kate_(film).jpg). (Take the original image, edit it, resize it to the desired dimensions but with the JPG quality settings set at a very high level.) No format change necessary, no edit to this article Kate (film) even necessary.
When asked to explain his change he did not explain it and instead responded negatively. [5] This hostility is consistent with what I experienced with this editor before, he does not like to follow the simple rules and provided meaningful edit summaries, which might have avoided this problem from the start. He seems to take disagreements very personally, and gets hostile instead of discussing the matter. He continues to incorrectly assume that as an anonymous IP editor I cannot possibly be editing in good faith. His user page states that he is "No longer here" I wish that was true and I could continue edit this article like I did before he got here and made his unexplained changes. Mistakes happen, but other editors know how to disagree and discuss without so much hostility.
He eventually wrote the edit summary: "There is no such thing as using "JPG is better than PNG" when it comes to film posters. PNG is uploaded because it features the correct saturation and sharpness with reduced pixels (common sense)."
None of the improvements he wants require an image format change, all can be achieved while still using JPG. None of this was necessary, better explanation of his changes in the first place, or not making them at all could have avoided this. I strongly suggest he make any changes he believes are necessary to the existing image File:Kate_(film).jpg directly.
The guideline WP:PIFU says "JPEG for photographic images" and "PNG for everything else".
-- 109.76.198.55 ( talk) 14:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Deadline says the budget was $25 million. [7] The source is already referenced in the production section, but the budget figure has not been added to the text or the Infobox yet. -- 109.78.193.127 ( talk) 12:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
WP:GOODFAITH. An anon ip editor made a good faith effort to improve the article, specifically the character descriptions. [8] I looked at that edit and I looked at the cast section and thought "lets try and improve the article".
The character descriptions could be better, or they could be left out entirely (as many film articles do, and this article did until quite recently). Please improve the character descriptions. Even if things that happened in the plot are a "neutral fact" that does not make them good character descriptions, and it is better to keep the plot in the plot section. Please take the edits of the other anon and my edits as good faith suggestions that the Cast section could be better. I urge Sundayclose ( talk · contribs) to take a closer look and please do something, anything at all, to move the article forward in some he thinks might be an improvement. -- 109.76.206.80 ( talk) 15:40, 7 November 2021 (UTC)