User talk:Kumagoro-42
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
[edit] RE:edits to Futurama and Amy Wong
Sorry you're having some stress about editing. I had a look at the specific edits you made and I think the reason both were undone was because of your descriptions of Amy as "hot". The key item to remember is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and we have to keep our own thoughts and opinions out of it. That being said, descriptions such "hot" and "beautiful" about animated characters tend to strike other editors as representing a single person's point of view, not everyone will think an animated character should be described that way. All I can advise is to keep trying and consider reading some articles listed at WP:FA, articles which have been identified as the best on Wikipedia, to see what is expected and to get some ideas of how to improve the current articles. If you feel like you have an important addition to an article and you find that it is being reverted consistently then consider discussing it on the article's talk page and get some opinions on why it is being deleted and how it could be improved. Good luck and let me know if you need any help with specific issues! Stardust8212 02:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] RE:edits to Futurama and Amy Wong
Hello, thanks for your answer. I perfectly understand that is crucial to not show gratuitos personal opinions in someone's article (that is true for Wikipedia, but also for all serious journalist works). The point is: these adjectives doesn't reflect my point of view on both Amy and Leela, but the creators' point of view, as being explicited many times during audio commentaries (I can provide direct quote, if you feel they will be needed). The fact that Futurama includes some female characters intentionally depicted as very attractive in a way (although with "quirks", i.e. Leela's monocular eye, etc.) is a peculiar feature of the show. Maybe I choosed the wrong adjectives, but I wanted to fix what I feel as a decriptive lack: someway I feel that these characters presentations is too much "asexuated", and do not reflect one of the aspect of their intended design and personalities. Other than that, the fact that Fry is constantly seeking to being loved by Leela through the show (leading to much appreciated episodes such as "Parasite Lost"), is a dominant fact for the character, as well as the fact that Leela would be all in all a very attractive woman if not for her unique eye. These elements are left out the description, and I thinks that's a very wrong and unbalanced way to look at the characters. Last, why professor Farnsworth is not meant to be decribed as an "absent-minded" man, a trait he always show in all the episodes? I feel these descriptions concentrate over all the secondary elements and don't catch some of the main elements. Please let me know what you think about that. Do you think I should open a discussion about these matters? Kumagoro-42 03:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- I think if you really feel these elements are lacking from the articles then it is best to bring it up on the respective talk pages. It is also best to find reliable, secondary sources which indicate that this is a significant aspect of the character (the Amy Wong page in particular is lacking in this regard). Stardust8212 03:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Centralized TV Episode Discussion
Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [1]. --Maniwar (talk) 19:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
