Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:19, 30 September 2015

Television C‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Misplaced Pages articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

"Positive" Reception

It reads contradictory to say that the show received positive reviews from critics, but then follow it (almost exclusively) with derisive quotes from critics. Any agreement to replace some of them with positive quotes to maintain Wiki neutrality? (Antinate (talk) 06:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC))

This is factually wrong. There is more positive review than negative. zzz (talk) 12:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not here for a conversation about what is or isn't an objective fact. Each of the quotes are a bit backhanded, in my opinion. So I'm leaving the neutrality tag until there's actual discussion about the content of the quotes, not impulsive "nope, you're wrong"s. (Antinate (talk) 17:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC))

There's nothing actionable in what you're now saying, except, you could try adding another review. zzz (talk) 18:18, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

He's saying it's an issue of undue weight to include only negative reviews when the show has received generally positive reviews, which I agree with. The section ought to be rewritten. Calidum 22:15, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

He's either choosing to ignore rt's positive "consensus", and a 7.8/10 "good" review written out in full, (first message above), or (second message) he's saying that these positive reviews are "a bit backhanded" (WP:OR). Clearly, anything scoring less than 80% on RT has issues, so there's no surprise to find criticism in the criticism section.zzz (talk) 22:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

If you're going to say "He's saying it's an issue of undue weight to include only negative reviews when the show has received generally positive reviews, which I agree with" then you seem to be saying that the two positive reviews written out in full are in fact both "negative reviews". I'm inclined to believe they are positive as advertised/claimed by the author, so the positive and negative have therefore been given due weight. zzz (talk) 22:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

This was the problem. zzz (talk) 13:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Self-contradictory preamble removed. If someone could better sum up what's allegedly so great about the series, that is worth a try; unless it's just "good story, acceptable acting" like it says. zzz (talk) 13:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I definitely don't agree with the way you chose to handle that, so I went ahead and revised the Reception section to better demonstrate what I mean. It sounds more neutral, and it sorts out positive from decidedly negative quotes. Also truncated extraneous lines. Now: as far as lifting quotes from Rotten Tomatoes is concerned, I added a Who? tag, since if we're going to quote reviewers—Rotten Tomatoes is an aggregate website, so we should lift quotes from the respective viewers, not Rotten Tomatoes. But overall, I think it reads more balanced now. (Antinate (talk) 21:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC))

Well, the review with the "who?" tag would require you to go to the website to verify. Other than that, you re-added the pointless and contradictory "Narcos received positive reviews from critics", you split the RT into two separate sections, which is clearly not an improvement, and wrote out the full details of one RT reviewer, which are in the ref already. Also not an improvement. As I've suggested already, if it's not positive enough for you, add some more positive review. Please justify your edits before reverting. zzz (talk) 21:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

You disagree with my edits, and I disagree with your objectionable opinions that they're "pointless" or "contradictory." It's not contradictory when neutrality demands that you show both sides. But if it satisfies you, I will make an addendum—to my previous edit—and say that it received "mostly" positive reviews. Furthermore, most Reception sections in Misplaced Pages articles separate positive and negative reviews. These are quotes that were on the page before I sorted them out, so the change is for clarity. Now, I do want to note that you haven't given me any actual justifications to revert to my changes beyond "it's CLEARLY not an improvement!" Your absolutism is neither meaningful or constructive. Provided that, I do not expect a fourth revert on your part or I will make a submission to the 3RR noticeboard for edit warring. (Antinate (talk) 22:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC))

If you revert again, that will be your fourth revert in row. Please read my explanation again, and attempt to justify your edit based on my actual objections to it, and avoiding WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as your sole reason. zzz (talk) 22:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah, you don't mind your WP:SLEEPER account getting blocked. diff zzz (talk) 22:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I made a contribution, not a revert. And insults are unworthy of you. Since you still haven't contributed any meaningful dialogue to the discussion, I don't expect the article to change. (Antinate (talk) 22:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC))

You did 4 (four) reverts, after being warned, above. Why don't you use your regular account, Antinate? Or are we to believe that this is your 56th edit ever, in about 9 years? zzz (talk) 22:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

summary

1. The claim that the reviews are "almost exclusively" negative - which no one believes.
2. Also, that they are all "somewhat backhanded" - which no one believes.

The section was changed to include precisely all of the same reviews.

Then, and only after further incisive commentary, "neutrality demands that you show both sides" etc, the actual concern is finally revealed: the theory is, apparently, that a negative review must not be mentioned in the same section as the others. This is not a policy, and here it is being used in my view to degrade the quality of the article. The reviews selected by Rotten Tomatoes clearly make more sense in the RT section.

Obviously, the changes were not discussed, and I am restoring the stable version. If there are objections, please use words to describe what they actually are. zzz (talk) 18:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

It's been pointed out why the previous version problematic. Those issues have been resolved with the addition of a positive review to better reflect the critical reception. Your change here is without merit and I don't need your approval to improve the article. There is little wonder why you've been blocked three times for edit warring in the past 11 months; do you want to make it four? Calidum 18:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• Your only previous comment here stated that the reviews are all negative. You clearly don't believe that, since your preferred version contains all the same reviews.
• Now you claim that a positive review has been added, although in fact no reviews have been added.
• If you continue to use the talk page, you may avoid both of us getting blocked for edit warring. Clearly I am not going to accept your statements thus far, which have both been entirely divorced from reality. zzz (talk) 19:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

But the version preferred by myself and rejected by you better organizes the reviews (putting positive before negative) and provides a less back handed quote from the IGN review. You still haven't provided a reason for your objection other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Calidum 19:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• C-Class television articles
• Low-importance television articles
• WikiProject Television articles