User talk:WDStudios

... because it appears to be based on a misconception.

Your edit reason was "Removed all books based on movies, since the description explicitly excludes them." The thing is, I don't see anything in the description saying that. I do see a mention of movies based on books, but that's a complete inversion of books based on movies.

If you think I'm wrong here, please ask another moderator to make a decision on the matter, and if you get a decision that goes your way, go ahead and re-submit the edit.

@WDStudios @Labster @Looney Toons @GethN7 @Robkelk @QuestionableSanity @Derivative @SelfCloak

Actually I think I mistyped. I meant movies based on books.

This is the key line that was used for that logic:

"A movie is not a remake if it is based on the same source as an earlier film, such as the 1967 and 1998 versions of Doctor Doolittle, which were both based on the book series."

In this case @WDStudios extrapolated the logic of this to the conclusion that books based on movies fell under a similar premise as not being a true remake, which does admittedly hold, but you are correct in that this was not present and thus is merely inferred, not yet stated. I would suggest we hash out the language of the trope further before edits are made so all things edited are based on explicitly stated information as to the scope of the trope itself.

I liked your proposed trope page, but you need to add more context to your examples.

In general, you seem to edit while leaking a lot of your personal feelings into things. We strive to keep an impartial tone here, and also, if you are going to make contentious edits on moral topics, I suggest you discuss them with other editors prior if it will come off contentious.

Wikis are crowd-sourced projects, and we'd prefer to avoid disputes and upset where we can, so please do this before similar incidents in the future.

On the contrary: I REMOVED personal feelings from the one page that I've edited here.

Thanks for your reply. There was a disagreement on that by another editor. I suggest you, in a civil and reasonable manner, discuss the matter with the party in question to avoid future conflict. In fact, to avoid edit warring, either real or potential, I, and I say this as an admin, will insist on it.

Revisiting this, I am holding on approving or rejecting your proposed edit to Star Trek because you have included some personal opinions in the edit. Whether you like it or not, "Short Treks" does exist, and trying to pretend that it doesn't is intellectually dishonest at best and censorship at worst.

I am referring this edit to other mods for review.

@Labster @Looney Toons @GethN7 @Robkelk @QuestionableSanity @Derivative @SelfCloak

While most of the proposed edit does update a lot of outdated information, YMMV (i.e. - opinions) do NOT belong on non-YMMV pages. On YMMV, vent your spleen regarding opinions, but non-YMMV pages should stick to facts, no matter how disagreeable they may be.

Update: I rejected the proposed edit. Try again, but keep your personal dislike out of it and report the unvarnished truth as impartially as possible from now on.

The newer Star Trek shows do need descriptions, and the ones I provided were a mix of facts and extremely widely held opinions, or facts that represented other people's opinions (example: the Rotten Tomatoes score). I'll give it another shot with your advice in mind.

I have no particular opinion on Short Treks, other than the tribble episode, which I thought was brilliant. However, it's not a "real" TV series, in the sense that its episode lengths aren't designed to fit into a one-hour or half-hour time slot, and it shouldn't be grouped with them. Perhaps it could be given its own section?

Fair enough. It's still a series of some sort, so it should be classed as such, with clarifying information on it's nonstandard formatting. If it needs it's own section due to unusualness, so be it.

Thanks for your further edits. I noticed you chopped out a lot of what we call natter (people basically having a meandering conversation in the page), and given how contradictory a lot of it was, good call on excising and trimming it.

Trimming natter was what got me banned from TV Tropes, which is weird, because they have a strict anti-natter policy...