344:
merely the dejure way early stage articles got put together until something better could be done. At best chronology is of very little importance to readers, and it really only matters if a review is more or less contemporary or if it was a more distant retrospective review. But forcing the reviews into a strictly linear chronology undoes the efforts that were made to group reviews by theme (in an ideal world reviews would be organized not simply by chronology or reviewer but by topic, such as writing, acting, direction etc, that stood out in an episode).
752:
more of my GF changes... last thing I want to do is "make work" for anyone else. Specifically, I removed Years that are already in the Cites, and
Grouped Ratings by "Best of ALL ST" vs "Best of Series" and by Negative vs Positive reviews, and by Other Topic (such as Time Travel ep's vs Borg ep's vs... you get the idea). Also added Hidden Commentary on one article ("The Measure of a Man") to help section it off by Topic, since it has a very large "Reception" content. Hope that helps ~<}:^: -->
291:
182:
231:
213:
151:
842:
624:, but unfortunately not an improvement. Knowledge (XXG) had changed over the years, in the past many articles were written like lists, particularly reviews being listed chronology, and many articles are still in that condition. (Most of the Voyager articles have seen little or no improvement in years). Over time some articles have improved and
586:
longer providing the kind of helpful oversight that would have been very useful here. (Very similar things have happened to me in the past, I used to edit a lot of film and tv articles, but when I tried to cleanup a video game article editors claimed the weird things they were doing there were actually intentional.)
768:
Some points: 1) Knowledge (XXG) articles vary in quality and comprehensiveness, and so just something existing one way or another isn't innately a good reason for something to be the way it is. 2) I would say that given the large amount of time the majority of Trek episodes have existed, especially
673:
and that is where most need to go for more overview information, rather than the general explanation of the concept of science fiction. Again I will try to salvage what I can but it is likely I will have to wholly revert a huge amount of the edits you have made to the Star Trek
Enterprise articles.
656:
I _always_ check the diffs before reverting. If corrections or improvements have been made to references (such as archive urls added) I will usually partially restore those corrections. Again though a lot of the things that might have seem like improvements at the time will need to be reverted, for
512:
As for Year Lists, I partially agree that it IS a List, and understand the
Argument that Knowledge (XXG) is not a place for Lists, per se. But from an Editor's perspective, if anyone ELSE adds NEW Reception/Reviews in the Future (or even Cite's add'l older reviews), it's easier to add it to the End
508:
Now... a few things I noticed along the way. When it comes to the
Reception sections, yes you very well could serve the reading public better by having prose/paragraphs that grouped various Review Cite's by Subject/Topic, and/or by Contemporary vs. Retro statements. But that's NOT how most Articles
343:
These changes look like they were made in good faith but I feel like this is a mistake that needs to be reverted en masse. I can understand that an editor might look at the sheer quantity of episode articles that list reviews chronology and think that it was the way to thing not realising that was
751:
I went back into my
Contributions list to hit all the ST Articles I edited, looking to "de-list-ified by Year, reverting to prose", and to do so without Reverting anything else that I may have "fixed" like Typos & such... Hopefully I was successful enough that you don't have to Revert-Fix any
677:
I've have other things to do besides edit
Knowledge (XXG), it was months before I even noticed these problems, it could be a while before I have time to do cleanup . The Featured articles are best examples, please look to them. I'm sorry if this is personally discouraging but I hope other editors
529:
If you feel the need to go back and group them in some more meaningful way (i.e., by Topic/Subject), feel free, but don't just Revert them entirely. After all, I put in a quite a bit of time to make improvements & make better sense of those
Articles, and to help Future Editors to add to them
642:
I did not create subsections when there was not enough to justify it (In most cases there is only really one significant retrospective review, and that's from Keith DeCandido of Tor.com, and I wouldn't wan to create subsection for less than three items but preferably multiple paragraphs of good
585:
In the past when this project was more active an editor would have noticed and reverted and given you helpful advice before you invested all that time, and to focus on the parts of your changes that were more in keeping with the best of this project. This project seems to be largely dead and no
712:
and hopefully you can see what is supposed to be happening but do feel free to tell me what I've probably got wrong, there's always something. I hope you will find hidden comments I've added helpful (albeit too late), but I know other editors would curse me for using them that heavily.
369:(May 25, 2004) and changes to Featured Articles usually require a bit more discussion, or get reverted quickly (and as of June 20, 204 it still hasn't been). I really need other editors to indicate if missed something or if there really is consensus for this sort of changes. --
520:
I DID give thought, prior to my edits, that, like other articles, for other shows, that it would've been better if the
Original Contributors created sub-sections that called out which reviews were Contemporary (i.e., Initial Reaction) versus Retro, because it seemed that many
798:
had
Reviews listed in order of Year, and worse, those in the same year were not even Grouped into the same paragraph, but instead had only one line per review/citation (which bugged me). Anyway, that probably contributed to why I edited other ST Episode Articles to order
509:
appeared to me! Within paragraphs they were NOT necessarily grouped in ANY meaningful way, and further, by Year, they were in NO Particular Order. It was a bit of a pet-peeve to me that no care was taken in grouping them in any meaningful way.
516:
My methodology was to keep
Contemporary reviews to the Top of the section, in prose/paragraph format, then list Retro reviews afterwards by year, making it easier if anyone wanted to add Sub-sections to differentiate Contemporary V Retro.
549:
That thought process all sounds reasonable to me. Grouping by topic/theme is ideal, but if there is no logic to the section and you are just defining contemporary vs retro then that shouldn't be making the articles any worse. -
769:
before the internet was as omnipresent as it is, separating contemporary from retrospective reviews is a good idea, but it would depend on the sourcing available for the specific pages, and strict chronologies run into
525:
reviewers, Like Me, might go on a Binge and put up their own "Re-Watch" reviews online... some even being Paid to do so by a Mag/Blog. I'm not paid, and have no interest in Blogging, but I can do what I can do on Wiki.
513:
of that List, than Mix it in to existing Paragraphs without ANY Thought to Topic, Subject, and/or Year. So that's why I ordered them, and also Grouped those Cites that fell within the same Year into the same paragraph.
803:
by year, intending to "help" maintain consistency across articles. Of course, now that I know better, I'll keep an Eye out for any others that are listed that way and fix them. ThanQ All for your feedback! ~<}:^:
734:
had nothing to do with User:GreyElfGT but set a bad example with the same problem of overtly including the chronology of the references in the prose so i reorganized it and several other articles from season 1. --
820:
That's because there was a prolific editor who would add prose line stuff to every article they could; that means articles need to be cleaned up, not that it's how reception sections are supposed to be organized.
773:
issues and should almost always be avoided. Likewise, different contexts and sourcing would mean some articles just aren't going to be standardized, and trying to make them conform isn't a good use of time.
300:
530:
something New, quickly and within the relevant year the Reaction came. I've also Added Reviews from others where there was a Need...ie, where very little was present to begin with. Anyway...
498:
Unless such improvement occurs, the Episode Article is in danger of not retaining that add'l info and being merged back to the Episode List... as I'm just now finding out while watching
39:
632:
That is called writer focused prose, and it is not a good thing. It is not about making Knowledge (XXG) easier for editors, it is about making an encyclopedia better for readers.
98:
142:
138:
134:
130:
126:
122:
118:
114:
110:
106:
102:
457:. While doing so, I also looked at many (but not all) of the respective Wiki Articles for those Episodes, just like I did when I watched all 20 Seasons + Films of
653:
tags I did frequently included that were there to help indicate where a subsection could go eventually (if the section ever got large enough to need subdivision).
583:
of your changes and how much work you put in is unfortunately also not important. It is not about you, or me, it is about writing a better encyclopedia article.
332:) has gone through a whole load of Star Trek Enterprise episode articles (and probably others) and reordered the reviews chronologically. I reverted one case (
74:
340:. In the past editors making substantial changes have been noticed and urged to discuss large changes across many articles, perhaps I missed a discussion?
884:
879:
80:
889:
568:, which added a whole lot of dates into the reviews section of a Featured Article. It's emblematic of what happened here. These do all seem like
715:
This has taken up to much time already and there is other work I should be doing, I'll try and tackle a few more episodes over the weekend. --
736:
716:
679:
370:
348:
333:
698:
I've made some edits to the first episode of Enterprise to show an example what the prose was supposed to be doing. Please look at the
699:
337:
579:
and dedication to the franchise while impressive is beside the point of making better encyclopedia articles here. The time and sheer
249:
238:
218:
24:
307:
20:
669:). Think about the readers, if somehow a confused reader ends up on an episode article the keyword in the opening sentence is the
248:-related topics on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, you can edit the page attached to this page, or visit the
69:
706:
has been provided to you (rather than the editor or archivist perspective of the strict chronology of when it was published).
193:
60:
150:
93:
606:
161:
740:
720:
683:
639:
374:
352:
199:
661:
might be helpful in a general article, but in context of an episode article for a science fiction show it is
612:
s that you should be taking as examples to aspire to. Making the best articles more like the worst articles
770:
666:
569:
475:
So, Yes, they were Good Faith edits, and many were focused on those articles that had templates such as:
50:
670:
596:
555:
662:
628:
has replaced the lists (or tables) which I hope you can see from the example of the Featured articles.
65:
861:
806:
754:
535:
362:
336:) before realising this had been done across multiple articles, including GA rated articles such as
325:
810:
758:
539:
329:
592:
also correct, most Star Trek encyclopedia article are not high quality but it is the high quality
465:
to see what Reviewers and Critical Reception had to say...very interesting stuff, at least to me,
166:
165:
625:
865:
849:
835:
827:
814:
780:
762:
744:
724:
687:
678:
will help GreyElfGT make better changes in future and help revert to restore the articles. --
559:
543:
378:
356:
46:
822:
775:
638:
I would've created subsections if there was enough content for a subsection, but because of
551:
347:
Am I wrong? Do other editors think these changes were an improvement and should be kept? --
163:
621:
855:
658:
647:
290:
873:
453:
so that I can further enjoy and keep up with new seasons, as well as the upcoming
731:
572:
but it is a mistake to make retrograde changes to long stable Featured articles.
636:"it would've been better if the Original Contributors created sub-sections "
488:
Mostly Plot (i.e., not enough in itself to justify a separate Article), and,
244:
230:
212:
841:
794:
initially mine alone... I had run across other ST Episode Articles that
786:
I should also note that the Idea of ordering Reception By Year was
730:
I've done some cleanup on various Enterprise season 1 articles.
242:, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to all
285:
175:
167:
15:
840:
252:, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
852:
that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.
709:
613:
565:
366:
702:
of the article as a reader first, and consider if the
403:
or anything later. I recently concluded a Re-Watch of
491:
other-such "Needs Improvement" notices... because...
643:prose.) Unfortunately you seem to have missed the
468:Other details such as Production, Cast, etc., and,
564:Adam, if you haven't already please look at this
365:even made this same change to a Featured Article
502:season 3 (see THAT discussion on its own page).
192:does not require a rating on Knowledge (XXG)'s
27:and anything related to its purposes and tasks.
590:"that's NOT how most Articles appeared to me!"
850:Talk:Dominion War#Requested move 14 July 2024
836:Talk:Dominion War#Requested move 14 July 2024
708:Then please do look at it again as an editor
8:
207:
848:There is a requested move discussion at
657:example adding wikilinks to terms like
209:
635:
629:
589:
262:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Star Trek
7:
334:Rogue Planet (Star Trek: Enterprise)
181:
179:
471:To make Improvements along the way.
384:My 2Β’ on this whole topic follows.
198:It is of interest to the following
338:Affliction (Star Trek: Enterprise)
14:
479:Needs Citation (or a Better Cite)
236:This page is within the scope of
45:New to Knowledge (XXG)? Welcome!
885:NA-importance Star Trek articles
880:Project-Class Star Trek articles
399:Movies even came out, let alone
289:
229:
211:
180:
149:
40:Click here to start a new topic.
890:WikiProject Star Trek articles
630:"from an Editor's perspective"
533:Hope that helps! ~<}:^: -->
265:Template:WikiProject Star Trek
1:
622:reasonable and understandable
37:Put new text under old text.
409:of my Series/Season DVDs of
906:
866:22:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
828:14:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
824:Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs
815:13:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
777:Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs
745:17:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
725:11:39, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
704:most relevant information
688:11:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
671:main article for the show
618:wrong kind of consistency
560:07:39, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
544:03:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
379:23:47, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
357:23:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
224:
206:
75:Be welcoming to newcomers
781:15:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
763:11:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
320:Reviews ordered by year
845:
70:avoid personal attacks
844:
297:WikiProject Star Trek
239:WikiProject Star Trek
143:Auto-archiving period
25:WikiProject Star Trek
324:I just noticed that
302:a WikiProject Report
419:The Animated Series
401:The Next Generation
857:98ππΈπΆπ΄ππΈππ
846:
834:Requested move at
570:good faith efforts
482:Needs Verification
447:Strange New Worlds
395:since long before
268:Star Trek articles
194:content assessment
81:dispute resolution
42:
700:Accolades section
391:and was watching
387:I'm a big fan of
315:
314:
284:
283:
280:
279:
276:
275:
174:
173:
61:Assume good faith
38:
897:
863:
858:
825:
778:
652:
646:
611:
607:Featured article
605:
601:
595:
577:massive interest
575:GreyElfGT, your
311:on 26 July 2010.
299:was featured in
293:
286:
270:
269:
266:
263:
260:
233:
226:
225:
215:
208:
185:
184:
183:
176:
168:
154:
153:
144:
16:
905:
904:
900:
899:
898:
896:
895:
894:
870:
869:
856:
854:
839:
823:
776:
659:science fiction
650:
644:
609:
603:
599:
593:
500:The Mandalorian
322:
267:
264:
261:
258:
257:
170:
169:
164:
141:
87:
86:
56:
23:for discussing
12:
11:
5:
903:
901:
893:
892:
887:
882:
872:
871:
838:
832:
831:
830:
784:
783:
750:
748:
747:
737:109.79.168.147
717:109.76.195.249
714:
707:
697:
695:
694:
693:
692:
691:
690:
680:109.76.195.249
654:
640:WP:OVERSECTION
633:
587:
584:
573:
506:
505:
504:
503:
493:
492:
489:
486:
483:
480:
473:
472:
469:
466:
382:
381:
371:109.76.139.141
363:User:GreyElfGT
349:109.76.139.141
326:User:GreyElfGT
321:
318:
313:
312:
294:
282:
281:
278:
277:
274:
273:
271:
234:
222:
221:
216:
204:
203:
197:
186:
172:
171:
162:
160:
159:
156:
155:
89:
88:
85:
84:
77:
72:
63:
57:
55:
54:
43:
34:
33:
30:
29:
28:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
902:
891:
888:
886:
883:
881:
878:
877:
875:
868:
867:
864:
862:
859:
851:
843:
837:
833:
829:
826:
819:
818:
817:
816:
812:
808:
802:
797:
793:
792:
791:
782:
779:
772:
767:
766:
765:
764:
760:
756:
746:
742:
738:
733:
729:
728:
727:
726:
722:
718:
711:
705:
701:
689:
685:
681:
676:
675:
672:
668:
664:
660:
655:
649:
641:
637:
634:
631:
627:
623:
619:
615:
608:
598:
591:
588:
582:
578:
574:
571:
567:
563:
562:
561:
557:
553:
548:
547:
546:
545:
541:
537:
531:
527:
524:
518:
514:
510:
501:
497:
496:
495:
494:
490:
487:
484:
481:
478:
477:
476:
470:
467:
464:
463:
462:
460:
456:
452:
448:
444:
440:
436:
432:
428:
424:
420:
416:
412:
408:
407:
402:
398:
394:
390:
385:
380:
376:
372:
368:
364:
361:
360:
359:
358:
354:
350:
345:
341:
339:
335:
331:
327:
319:
317:
310:
309:
304:
303:
298:
295:
292:
288:
287:
272:
255:
251:
247:
246:
241:
240:
235:
232:
228:
227:
223:
220:
217:
214:
210:
205:
201:
195:
191:
187:
178:
177:
158:
157:
152:
148:
140:
136:
132:
128:
124:
120:
116:
112:
108:
104:
100:
97:
95:
91:
90:
82:
78:
76:
73:
71:
67:
64:
62:
59:
58:
52:
48:
47:Learn to edit
44:
41:
36:
35:
32:
31:
26:
22:
18:
17:
853:
847:
800:
795:
789:
788:
787:
785:
771:WP:PROSELINE
749:
703:
696:
667:WP:SEAOFBLUE
617:
597:good article
580:
576:
532:
528:
522:
519:
515:
511:
507:
499:
474:
458:
454:
450:
446:
442:
438:
434:
430:
426:
422:
418:
414:
410:
405:
404:
400:
396:
392:
388:
386:
383:
346:
342:
323:
316:
306:
301:
296:
253:
250:project page
243:
237:
200:WikiProjects
190:project page
189:
146:
92:
19:This is the
732:Dear Doctor
663:WP:OVERLINK
620:. All very
451:Lower Decks
874:Categories
665:(see also
552:adamstom97
455:Section 31
254:discussion
807:GreyElfGT
801:and group
755:GreyElfGT
536:GreyElfGT
485:Dead Link
443:Discovery
389:Star Trek
259:Star Trek
245:Star Trek
219:Star Trek
83:if needed
66:Be polite
21:talk page
626:WP:PROSE
581:quantity
459:Gunsmoke
308:Signpost
94:Archives
51:get help
796:already
616:is the
435:Voyager
429:Films,
417:Films,
305:in the
147:30Β days
710:(diff)
648:Anchor
614:(diff)
602:s and
566:(diff)
523:future
439:Picard
367:(diff)
196:scale.
188:This
99:Index
79:Seek
811:talk
759:talk
741:talk
721:talk
684:talk
556:talk
540:talk
449:and
375:talk
353:talk
330:talk
68:and
804:-->
790:not
431:DS9
427:TNG
423:TNG
415:TOS
411:TOS
406:ALL
397:TOS
393:TOS
876::
860:β’
813:)
805:--
761:)
753:--
743:)
723:)
686:)
651:}}
645:{{
610:}}
604:{{
600:}}
594:{{
558:)
542:)
534:--
461::
445:,
441:,
437:,
433:,
425:,
421:,
413:,
377:)
355:)
145::
139:10
137:,
133:,
129:,
125:,
121:,
117:,
113:,
109:,
105:,
101:,
49:;
809:(
757:(
739:(
719:(
682:(
554:(
538:(
373:(
351:(
328:(
256:.
202::
135:9
131:8
127:7
123:6
119:5
115:4
111:3
107:2
103:1
96::
53:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
