![]() | Sci-Fi Dine-In Theater Restaurant is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 21, 2015. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Sci-Fi Dine-In Theater Restaurant 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 rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) 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. |
Why does this restaurant need such a big wikipedia page? 93.96.86.218 ( talk) 22:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm not certain why my edits keep being undone, aside from a claim that they are connected with vandalism which I'm not a party to. I'm more than happy to help weed out vandalism on this page and will keep a watchful eye out as I continue to work. John Bailey Owen ( talk) 22:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
The creator of this page seems to have an alarming obsession with ensuring that no other person edits or improves this entry. Referring to legitimate edits as "vandalism" and using this as justification for protecting the page is frankly just sad. I'm sorry Neelix, but you are not and never will be the sole arbiter of what the world knows about the Sci-Fi Dine-In Theater Restaurant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.90.116 ( talk) 21:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
I've read and understand the Manual of Style. As it stands, the introduction:
- does not provide an accessible overview
- does not have an acceptable degree of relative emphasis
- is overly redundant (in multiple instances, text is repeated verbatim later on)
Please allow my edits to stand. In your own talk page you state that the first reason you spend more time editing wikipedia than contributing to academia is that you enjoy the collaborative nature of editing, and the way in which articles have several authors. However, you are the creator and sole contributor to this article, and you are reverting my edits without cause.
John Bailey Owen (
talk)
22:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Kneelicks, you mention on your user page that Wikipedia is more valuable than traditional academic work because its highest quality articles rely on the contribution of at least 3 contributors. Yet, you seem hesitant to let anyone other than yourself work on improving this article. How do you reconcile these stated beliefs and your clearly contradictory actions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.190.98 ( talk) 23:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Please stop undoing my edits of the lead and rest of the article wholesale. There are a number of directly repeated phrases in the lead - text that appears verbatim later on in the article. There is no reason the same text should be repeated multiple times.
John Bailey Owen ( talk) 18:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Hey, Neelix. While I agree that the lead is encouraged to be an accurate representation of the body. I don't believe that phrases repeated verbatim are encouraged. I think that is sensible and that lack of repetition is a hallmark of good, readable writing everywhere. My opinion is that the removed content should not be restored, though rewritten content based on that information would be fine. John Bailey Owen ( talk) 02:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for copy-editing this article, Nicholas! I have a few concerns with regards to the changes you made to the article. I made some minor changes which you can see in the article's edit history, but I have not acted on three of the more significant ones because I wanted to discuss them with you:
You removed more than half of the lead of the article with the edit summary, "reduced intro by removing detailed redundant info found properly later in article". Apart from discussions of this article specifically, I have never heard of information being provided both in the lead and in the body of a Wikipedia article as being in any way problematic. My understanding is that leads are by their very nature intended to summarize the body of the article, and should therefore repeat information from each of the other sections of the article. My understanding of what the lead should look like is derived from Wikipedia's guidelines on lead sections and from the lead sections of Wikipedia's featured articles. I feel that the current lead of this article is woefully inadequate in summarizing the contents of this article and quite divergent from the leads of featured articles. Would you be willing for me to restore the content that was removed from the lead?
Per WP:AND, the new section heading "Theme and atmosphere" seems redundant to me. Would you mind if we shortened the phrase to one word or the other?
As far as I can tell from the sources, there was no controversy surrounding the incident with Creuzer; this was simply an event in the history of the restaurant. I don't see any reason to keep it separate from the "History" section. What are your thoughts?
I hope that we can come to a mutually satisfactory conclusion on the items above. Thank you again for engaging with this article. Neelix ( talk) 23:36, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
I do not care. Do what you want. I believe my changes are reasonable and correct, but the basic rule is for each editor to do what they want, and to not engage in "edit wars". By the way, this article is much longer than most theme restaurant articles, which, on average, seem to be,in total, about the length of the introduction here.
I mentioned my edit count because I was awed to be in the presence of such an illustrious editor. I think I am no slouch, but to be in the top 250 you must make an enormous number of edits. I am deeply and sincerely committed to the good faith of Wikipedians. I have had many happy and pleasant interactions with them.
Nick Beeson (
talk)
18:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Regarding the copy edit, I'm currently checking the rate of Featured Article compliance with a part of the MoS called WP:LQ, and this article currently uses a mixture of British and American punctuation forms (which is against the rules). I'd fix it myself but 1) I hate WP:LQ, hope it dies, and don't want to inflict it on such a nice article and 2) I would rather see it go down within Wikipedia's rules than tell all of you to straight-up disregard it or open up the unholy can of worms that would be flung at me full-speed if I were to do so myself. So I'll just tell you that WP:LQ exists and if any of you feel strongly about comma placement or MOS compliance, you might want to check it out. For the sake of copy editing alone, you should probably pick just one variety of English for the whole article. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 00:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Evidently this article has excessive bloat. Would a featured article review be appropriate? sst✈ discuss 09:22, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
@ Epicgenius, Nikkimaria, Jaguar, Tim riley, Z105space, and SchroCat: Pinging users who have commented at this article's FAC. What do you think about concerns over excessive detail and non-NPOV writing of this article?
Anyway, I disagree that this article is too long or detailed. This article has a prose size of 14458 characters when it just passed FAC, which is perfectly appropriate. Unlike Tara Teng, this article is not a BLP. Comprehensiveness is appreciated with featured articles. Yes, it is created by Neelix, but I do not see anything wrong with this article. sst✈ discuss 12:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
It is not awful, but it needed some trim. Not sure if the latest people are commenting on the current version or the untrimmed one. Legacypac ( talk) 13:09, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
![]() | Sci-Fi Dine-In Theater Restaurant is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 21, 2015. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Sci-Fi Dine-In Theater Restaurant 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 rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) 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. |
Why does this restaurant need such a big wikipedia page? 93.96.86.218 ( talk) 22:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm not certain why my edits keep being undone, aside from a claim that they are connected with vandalism which I'm not a party to. I'm more than happy to help weed out vandalism on this page and will keep a watchful eye out as I continue to work. John Bailey Owen ( talk) 22:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
The creator of this page seems to have an alarming obsession with ensuring that no other person edits or improves this entry. Referring to legitimate edits as "vandalism" and using this as justification for protecting the page is frankly just sad. I'm sorry Neelix, but you are not and never will be the sole arbiter of what the world knows about the Sci-Fi Dine-In Theater Restaurant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.90.116 ( talk) 21:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
I've read and understand the Manual of Style. As it stands, the introduction:
- does not provide an accessible overview
- does not have an acceptable degree of relative emphasis
- is overly redundant (in multiple instances, text is repeated verbatim later on)
Please allow my edits to stand. In your own talk page you state that the first reason you spend more time editing wikipedia than contributing to academia is that you enjoy the collaborative nature of editing, and the way in which articles have several authors. However, you are the creator and sole contributor to this article, and you are reverting my edits without cause.
John Bailey Owen (
talk)
22:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Kneelicks, you mention on your user page that Wikipedia is more valuable than traditional academic work because its highest quality articles rely on the contribution of at least 3 contributors. Yet, you seem hesitant to let anyone other than yourself work on improving this article. How do you reconcile these stated beliefs and your clearly contradictory actions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.190.98 ( talk) 23:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Please stop undoing my edits of the lead and rest of the article wholesale. There are a number of directly repeated phrases in the lead - text that appears verbatim later on in the article. There is no reason the same text should be repeated multiple times.
John Bailey Owen ( talk) 18:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Hey, Neelix. While I agree that the lead is encouraged to be an accurate representation of the body. I don't believe that phrases repeated verbatim are encouraged. I think that is sensible and that lack of repetition is a hallmark of good, readable writing everywhere. My opinion is that the removed content should not be restored, though rewritten content based on that information would be fine. John Bailey Owen ( talk) 02:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for copy-editing this article, Nicholas! I have a few concerns with regards to the changes you made to the article. I made some minor changes which you can see in the article's edit history, but I have not acted on three of the more significant ones because I wanted to discuss them with you:
You removed more than half of the lead of the article with the edit summary, "reduced intro by removing detailed redundant info found properly later in article". Apart from discussions of this article specifically, I have never heard of information being provided both in the lead and in the body of a Wikipedia article as being in any way problematic. My understanding is that leads are by their very nature intended to summarize the body of the article, and should therefore repeat information from each of the other sections of the article. My understanding of what the lead should look like is derived from Wikipedia's guidelines on lead sections and from the lead sections of Wikipedia's featured articles. I feel that the current lead of this article is woefully inadequate in summarizing the contents of this article and quite divergent from the leads of featured articles. Would you be willing for me to restore the content that was removed from the lead?
Per WP:AND, the new section heading "Theme and atmosphere" seems redundant to me. Would you mind if we shortened the phrase to one word or the other?
As far as I can tell from the sources, there was no controversy surrounding the incident with Creuzer; this was simply an event in the history of the restaurant. I don't see any reason to keep it separate from the "History" section. What are your thoughts?
I hope that we can come to a mutually satisfactory conclusion on the items above. Thank you again for engaging with this article. Neelix ( talk) 23:36, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
I do not care. Do what you want. I believe my changes are reasonable and correct, but the basic rule is for each editor to do what they want, and to not engage in "edit wars". By the way, this article is much longer than most theme restaurant articles, which, on average, seem to be,in total, about the length of the introduction here.
I mentioned my edit count because I was awed to be in the presence of such an illustrious editor. I think I am no slouch, but to be in the top 250 you must make an enormous number of edits. I am deeply and sincerely committed to the good faith of Wikipedians. I have had many happy and pleasant interactions with them.
Nick Beeson (
talk)
18:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Regarding the copy edit, I'm currently checking the rate of Featured Article compliance with a part of the MoS called WP:LQ, and this article currently uses a mixture of British and American punctuation forms (which is against the rules). I'd fix it myself but 1) I hate WP:LQ, hope it dies, and don't want to inflict it on such a nice article and 2) I would rather see it go down within Wikipedia's rules than tell all of you to straight-up disregard it or open up the unholy can of worms that would be flung at me full-speed if I were to do so myself. So I'll just tell you that WP:LQ exists and if any of you feel strongly about comma placement or MOS compliance, you might want to check it out. For the sake of copy editing alone, you should probably pick just one variety of English for the whole article. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 00:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Evidently this article has excessive bloat. Would a featured article review be appropriate? sst✈ discuss 09:22, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
@ Epicgenius, Nikkimaria, Jaguar, Tim riley, Z105space, and SchroCat: Pinging users who have commented at this article's FAC. What do you think about concerns over excessive detail and non-NPOV writing of this article?
Anyway, I disagree that this article is too long or detailed. This article has a prose size of 14458 characters when it just passed FAC, which is perfectly appropriate. Unlike Tara Teng, this article is not a BLP. Comprehensiveness is appreciated with featured articles. Yes, it is created by Neelix, but I do not see anything wrong with this article. sst✈ discuss 12:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
It is not awful, but it needed some trim. Not sure if the latest people are commenting on the current version or the untrimmed one. Legacypac ( talk) 13:09, 11 November 2015 (UTC)