User talk:UpDown

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2


Contents

[edit] biography

hello....i though it better to discuss this rather than flying off into a really pointless war. i understand your feelings that biography is somehow redundant, however, it's a practically a defacto standard, appearing in thousands of articles. --emerson7 19:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You say it's better to discuss, yet you have reverted my edit anyway, rather than wait for me to reply here? An edit war could also have been avoided if you had perhaps started a talk or given a explanation when you added it second time. I would argue against it being a "defacto standard", thousands of articles do not have it in at all, and having just looked at some FA articles, there appears to be no guideline to include it, or indeed common practise. --UpDown (talk) 07:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Autumn Kelly

I didn't revert your edit on purpose. I only intended to revert the anonymous IP's two edits (which it says in my edit summary). Usually an edit doesn't go through if someone else had edited in the meantime, but this one did. Sorry about that. I tried to add your changes back, but you already had, so at least the page is ok. Ariadne55 (talk) 13:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

If you continue to have problems with this article the appropriate step is to ask for protection (or semi-protection). PatGallacher (talk) 12:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, if it's changed again I will do.--UpDown (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Autumn Kelly - "Compelled"

If it wasn't for the Act I doubt she would have converted, so I reckon "compelled" is fair enough. As in, "I feel compelled to leave the car at the pub, because I'm over the limit." I'm deciding to leave the car, because the law compels me to. I shouldn't have written that the compulsion is to convert to Anglicanism, as that's not what the Act states. A simple abjuring of Catholicism is sufficient.Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 07:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, but it is not our place to say she was "compelled" . Of her own free will she converted and to say she was "compelled" suggests she was forced to do, and it is not our place to say that. After all royals have married Catholics in recent times, and their spouses haven't converted, so there is no compulsion, she chose to.--UpDown (talk) 08:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
In order for her husband to remain in the order of succession, she had to give up her religion. If you have a better way of putting it, please do. As it stands, you have blanked all reference to her conversion.Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 08:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes but there was no requirement for him to stay in the succession. She was not compelled to do anything (to our knowledge, we can't speculate), many others have given up their place, and as 11th in line he has no serious hope of becoming King. As the main part of the article talks about it in more detail, I think its best we remove it from the lead.--UpDown (talk) 11:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
If a person feels compelled to do something, that's not the same thing as saying they were forced to do it, unless it's in the sense that "If you assault me again, I'll be forced to report it." This is from http://www.answers.com/topic/compel: ""Compel: To force, drive, or constrain: Duty compelled the soldiers to volunteer for the mission. Of course he could become king, all he has to do is look to Nepal. But I take your point about having it in the lead.Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 11:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I still disagree, there is no actual evidence she changed faith to save his succession - that is pure speculation. She have just wanted to be the same faith as her husband. But regardless, I have removed from lead. --UpDown (talk) 12:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Dictionary definitions are not relevant here. "Of course, he could become King", LOL!!, yeah, Prince Harry and a machine gun at the next royal get together! get a grip! And anyway isn't Nepal a republic now. Where are the citations to say she was compelled? Unless an editor provides some, then its more blatant POV editing. Ms Philips has not commented publicly on her conversion but it appears some editors on wikipedia can read her mind! Either provide references or [*expletive deleted*] off! Snappy56 (talk) 13:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Dictionary definitions are proving irrelevant in more places than here, I fear. That and the rest of your comment pretty much speaks for itself, Snappy.Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Can you read her mind? She may have been an enthusiastic and willing convert to the Church of England for all you know. I see you still haven't provide any citation to say she was 'compelled'. This speaks volumes about your POV pushing, which then means you are reduced to semantic arguing about dictionary definitions to back your point. All you have to do is provide 1 single solitary citation to backup your assertions and this debate would be moot. Snappy56 (talk) 01:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] B.O.A.F

Don't you think the christmas special lengths should be with the specials and the rest of the episode details? not so much the episodes part of the series because they're generally the same length?Edito*Magica (talk) 00:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I actually don't understand the above. The Christmas specials should be in their own boxes between series. The duration is not needed in the boxes as it's in the main text at the opening.--UpDown (talk) 11:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
That’s ok; what i was suggesting was putting the Christmas special episode lengths within the box/table of each Christmas episode, so that a user can learn both who the episode is written and directed by, along with knowing the episode length, all in the same place, rather than having to scroll to the top to find out?

Perhaps an extra column for episode lengths for the Christmas specials, as their lengths tend to vary? Edito*Magica (talk) 11:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not totally sure an extra coloumn is needed, that's why the text is at the top. I don't believe there is any precedent for a duration box?--UpDown (talk) 07:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Ummm...I just can’t help thinking that the Christmas special durations would be better with the episodes, so all information for an episode is in one place (just makes it a little more convenient). Also, i think each piece of information for each series should be put under the series heading. For example, when series 8 aired and with how many episodes under the series 8 heading (just seems more logical that way, and again saves the user having to scroll to the top of the page to learn about a particular series).

These are only suggestions however, and I don’t intend making such changes without consensus. Thanks. Edito*Magica (talk) 01:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, Wikipedia (or any encyclopedia) cannot be written and designed purely for ease of use, because for a start that changes for each person. It is not inconvenient at all to have it all at the top, leads are meant to be of good length per WP:LEAD. Normal format is for long lead, then all the episode tables, not to have info with each table.--UpDown (talk) 13:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Separate issue, I think there’s too many reference tags in the lead ([1]) making it hard to read, and also untidy. Instead of [1] being used so excessively, couldn’t we just but one [1] at the end of the lead? Edito*Magica (talk) 01:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Difficult one, I can see your point, but I don't think it makes it hard to read or untidy, it's policy to have refs. However, as they are all the same ref it may be thought of as excessive.--UpDown (talk) 13:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Do you think all the dates in the lead really need to be hyperlinked? When they are already in the episodes’ tables? Again having so much bright blue in the paragraph makes it harder to read, than if it was all neatly in black. Edito*Magica (talk) 15:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Again, all dates are linked per policy. One lone years (i.e. without dates before them) should not be linked. This is to ensure user's preferences work.--UpDown (talk) 16:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)