|
Please sign your posts with ~~~~
|
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 48: |
Line 48: |
| | # Lastly do the above steps for the title text combining as many steps as possible. | | # Lastly do the above steps for the title text combining as many steps as possible. |
| | This allows the reader to find the explanation quickly, and not get lost in the verbosity, which still adds value as they can get more information bellow if they wish. Also it helps them understand the joke wile giving as little information as possible as the less jokes are explained before you get it, the funnier they are. I hope this helps [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.32|108.162.216.32]] 21:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC) | | This allows the reader to find the explanation quickly, and not get lost in the verbosity, which still adds value as they can get more information bellow if they wish. Also it helps them understand the joke wile giving as little information as possible as the less jokes are explained before you get it, the funnier they are. I hope this helps [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.32|108.162.216.32]] 21:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC) |
| − |
| |
| − | :Is this codified anywhere on the site, or is this just your opinion? I have edited a good number of articles (far more than you based on your IP history) and in my view, the explanation should be in whatever order makes sense for each article. If the comic isn't going to make sense without know what the Star Wars reference is, that has to be explained first. Having the reader read a paragraph explaining the comic only to wonder what any of that paragraph means until they read the rest of it is silly.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :This is not a 10-section, 50-paragraph article that would take half an hour to read. Readers are not so lazy that they can't skim a few short paragraphs. Unless there is some rule on this site about this, I disagree with your suggestion being a rule of how the explanation must read.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :In any event, your reversion doesn't even accomplish what you say you want to accomplish. The explanation of the comic in your revert is in the fourth and second-last paragraph (title text in the last) so if someone wants to "quickly" find out what the comics about, they still have to read through your whole version to do it. You didn't put the explanation up front or anything. You just deleted useful background that might interest the reader. I would argue that most people who read this site aren't looking for a 2-second explanation. I think most users here are interested in more in-depth discussion and insight as to the meaning of the comic. You moved my "Star wars" background info to the end because it was not part of the comic, but you instead put the 2nd paragraph being comicon background info which again, isn't any more directly related to explaining the comic than what you moved. Your third paragraph explains the scene from Star Wars IV - which is exactly what my Star Wars Background section did, so just because I organized it properly into sections, you call it backwards - but you've kept it the same. At least in my edit, if someone is aware of the the star wars background, there's a section called "The Comic" that they can skip to and just read about the comic. In yours they still have to read the whole thing (even though they know it) to find out where the comic explanation starts.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :In any event, reverting my edits was inappropriate. I edited the article for content including a) removing repeated content b) clearing up poorly written sections and c) adding further explanatory content. I will be reverting it back. If you still dispute my edits, it should be discussed in the article's discussion section. Thanks. [[User:TheHYPO|TheHYPO]] ([[User talk:TheHYPO|talk]]) 04:45, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
| |
