![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There has been recent edit warring in which a large section of the article was deleted, then reverted, then deleted and so on. Please can this issue be discussed here in a civil and obedient manner. Until our discussions are complete, the consensus shall be to retain the information repeatedly being deleted. Pablothepenguin ( talk) 19:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. All replies and supplicants below this text ---->
There have recently been several reversions over whether or not lists of the obstacles should be included in the article. I have removed the content for now; please do not add the content back until consensus has been established. I maintain the content is an indiscriminate, non-notable collection of information (see WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:FANCRUFT) and burden of proof rests with those arguing for inclusion. I've yet to here any reasons why the content should be included.
The following users have been involved in reverting in this content, and they might want to contribute to this discussion: @ Drmies and Pablothepenguin. — Bilorv (talk) (c) (e) 20:07, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I think we've got a pretty clear consensus. Three of us ( perhaps four) do not want the obstacles to be kept, with the policy WP:IINFO being cited by me. Meanwhile, one user disagrees with the concept of notability — which is a much wider issue and not something we can overturn here (not that we want to) — and two IPs haven't contributed to the discussion, but have been unhelpfully reverting removals. So the obstacle lists are not staying. If anyone wants to expand the Gameplay section a bit more with detailed description of a couple of obstacles, that's fine by me, but please don't edit war now we've got a consensus. I've removed the section and I will quickly revert you if you add it back. — Bilorv (talk) (c) (e) 10:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
An IP has just added a list of finalists from the first series. I think the list has the same problems as the obstacle lists did (see above); the list is " of importance only to a small population of fans" and is not notable. Should this list be kept in the article? I will remove the list from the article in about 24 hours if no-one gives a policy-based or otherwise reasonable objection. — Bilorv (talk) (c) (e) 10:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Seriously Leave Ninja Warrior UK alone if you haven't watched the show or heard of it. I'm sick of these edit wars and whoever keeps on removing the Finalists and Obstacles stop, it's important to leave them there so that people know what the obstacles are. Also, the Finalists are important because that's who made it the furthest. So far, I have 8 votes to keep both of them on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:84:4100:FAFD:7902:1EBF:E016:88C7 ( talk) 14:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There has been recent edit warring in which a large section of the article was deleted, then reverted, then deleted and so on. Please can this issue be discussed here in a civil and obedient manner. Until our discussions are complete, the consensus shall be to retain the information repeatedly being deleted. Pablothepenguin ( talk) 19:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. All replies and supplicants below this text ---->
There have recently been several reversions over whether or not lists of the obstacles should be included in the article. I have removed the content for now; please do not add the content back until consensus has been established. I maintain the content is an indiscriminate, non-notable collection of information (see WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:FANCRUFT) and burden of proof rests with those arguing for inclusion. I've yet to here any reasons why the content should be included.
The following users have been involved in reverting in this content, and they might want to contribute to this discussion: @ Drmies and Pablothepenguin. — Bilorv (talk) (c) (e) 20:07, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I think we've got a pretty clear consensus. Three of us ( perhaps four) do not want the obstacles to be kept, with the policy WP:IINFO being cited by me. Meanwhile, one user disagrees with the concept of notability — which is a much wider issue and not something we can overturn here (not that we want to) — and two IPs haven't contributed to the discussion, but have been unhelpfully reverting removals. So the obstacle lists are not staying. If anyone wants to expand the Gameplay section a bit more with detailed description of a couple of obstacles, that's fine by me, but please don't edit war now we've got a consensus. I've removed the section and I will quickly revert you if you add it back. — Bilorv (talk) (c) (e) 10:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
An IP has just added a list of finalists from the first series. I think the list has the same problems as the obstacle lists did (see above); the list is " of importance only to a small population of fans" and is not notable. Should this list be kept in the article? I will remove the list from the article in about 24 hours if no-one gives a policy-based or otherwise reasonable objection. — Bilorv (talk) (c) (e) 10:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Seriously Leave Ninja Warrior UK alone if you haven't watched the show or heard of it. I'm sick of these edit wars and whoever keeps on removing the Finalists and Obstacles stop, it's important to leave them there so that people know what the obstacles are. Also, the Finalists are important because that's who made it the furthest. So far, I have 8 votes to keep both of them on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:84:4100:FAFD:7902:1EBF:E016:88C7 ( talk) 14:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC)