Forum:Extended plots: Difference between revisions

From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
(Tigara Electronica - Ceva interesant)
m (Robot: Automated text replacement (-[Ff]orum archives header +archive))
 
(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
Daca sunteti un fumator si ati încercat practic toate produsele renuntarii la fumat pe piata astazi, poate doriti sa ia în considerare încercarea de tigara electronica. În timp ce tigara electronica nu este de fapt o încetare produs fumat, acesta nu ofera mai multe avantaje peste mentol si tigari traditionale non-mentol. De cercetare o tigara electronica revizuire a beneficiilor si aspectele disputatious ale E-tigara pentru a obtine o înteleaga pe deplin a ceea ce produsul este si ceea ce produsul nu este. Odata ce ati naviga printr-o revizuire impartial Electronic de tigara ca aceasta, va fi capabil sa ia o decizie bine educat pentru sanatatea ta.    
{{archive|Panopticon archives}}[[category:discussions without clear resolution]]
   
<!-- Please put your content under this line. Be sure to sign your edits with four tildes ~~~~ -->
Provide for E-tigareta nu este   
[[User:Tardis1963|Tardis1963]] has noted on several story pages, "Is the extended plot necessary? It makes the article nearly impossible to read."
Înainte crezi tigara electronica este o modalitate de a renunta la fumat toate împreuna, este awesome sa se înteleaga tigara electronica nu este un produs încetarea fumat. E-tigara se vor livra în continuare nicotina, în sistemul dumneavoastra si nu este proiectat pentru a elimina poftele pentru a pune capat fumat toate împreuna. Desi nu este o încetare produs fumat, e-tigara ofera multe beneficii peste tigari traditionale be biting on vor fi discutate în aceasta revizuire de tigari electronice.    
 
   
Since speaking to the same point on every single article talk page would be extremely cumbersome, I've created the page so that he can give us an extended rationale, and so that we can have a single discussion in one place. The floor is yours, [[User:Tardis1963|Tardis1963]] ... '''[[User:CzechOut|<span style="background:blue;color:white">Czech</span><span style="background:red;color:white">Out</span>]]''' [[User talk:CzechOut|☎]] | [[Special:Contributions/CzechOut|<font size="+1">✍</font>]] 16:44, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
Beneficiile Critique tigara electronica   
 
Tigarile sunt cunoscute pentru a contine mii de toxine mortale develop sunt nocive si cauza o serie de probleme de sanatate diferite. Tigara electronica nu contine nici una clatter aceste toxine daunatoare, be responsible for este, probabil, cel mai bun motiv pentru a comuta de la tigarile traditionale la e-tigara. Prin schimbarea va elimina gudron si monoxid de carbon de la obiceiul de dvs., guardianship materialize o mare diferenta în sanatatea dumneavoastra. Un alt beneficiu relate în cadrul reexaminarii de tigari electronice este faptul ca e-tigara nu emite nici un fum. În timp ce aparatul va arata ca este emite fum, aceasta este de fapt vapori de aer si nici poluanti sunt eliberate dupa ce puf. Deoarece e-tigari give someone the sack vapori de apa, acestea sunt mai sigure pentru oamenii to-do jurul tau si pentru mediu. Daca sunteti un fumator în cautarea de a commingle verde, acesta este un beneficiu imens.    
:All the pages that Tardis1963 left messages on were plot summaries that had been plagiarised from the Doctor Who Reference Guide. Not sure if a forum post was necessary to resolve this / was there anything to resolve? I have rolled back the affected articles in question. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] 16:50, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
   
::Well, his notes were vague. I thought he was implying that all extended plots somehow made story pages hard to read. He seemed to be arguing a point of general policy, not stating a case of specific vandalism. I strongly advocate extended plot details, FWIW. '''[[User:CzechOut|<span style="background:blue;color:white">Czech</span><span style="background:red;color:white">Out</span>]]''' [[User talk:CzechOut|☎]] | [[Special:Contributions/CzechOut|<font size="+1">✍</font>]] 20:21, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
Deoarece nu exista nici un fum emis de e-tigara, un alt beneficiu în aceasta reexaminare tigara electronica este faptul ca nu veti join în jurul mirosind a fum. Una dintre cele mai mari plângeri de non-fumatori este faptul ca fumul de tigara miroase oribil. Când sunteti fumat un popor e-tigara poate sa nu stiu chiar tu fum, deoarece dvs. haine, snuff, casa si masina nu va mirosi ca fumul de tigara. Daca sunteti fumator e-tigaretele veti aprecia o sanatate mai buna si mai bine dintii. de asigurare de sanatate si costurile de asigurare de viata va grade în jos, deoarece nu mai sunteti de tutun-utilizator. Costul mediu de e-tigari si filtre este mai mic decât sa cumpere un pachet pe zi. În cele bellow urma, veti economisi bani si mai buna a sanatatii dvs., be attracted to este un beneficiu imens în aceasta reexaminare de tigari electronice.    
 
   
:Yeah, what I said on the talk pages was pretty vague. What I sorta meant was that with the plot summaries extended to the length they were, the end of the page was nearly impossible to find. It was just a mass of text everywhere, not to mention that when trying to read them it was pretty easy to get lost in the mass of text. I did think that they would have been copied from the Doctor Who Reference Guide, but wasn't sure and didn't want to accuse.
Atunci când sunt lectura printr-o evaluare de tigari electronice, este outstanding sa se înteleaga argumentele pro si contra de e-tigara. În timp ce nu se poate pune jos nicotina în întregime, exista mai multe avantaje shield au fost discutate în cadrul revizuirii tigara electronica. Daca nu puteti renunta complet, cel putin ceva de fum misery nu este otravitor.
 
:IMO, they should just be relatively short plot ''summaries'', not extremelly long passages that could pass as a short novelisation. '''[http://doctor-who-collectors.wikia.com/wiki/User:Tardis1963 <span style="background:#0E234E; color:white">Tardis1963</span>]''' 20:44, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
::::Well, plagiarism aside, the one section that should be long on story pages is precisely the plot section, IMO. If the plot section were actually adequate, then these other sections, like references and story notes and continuity, wouldn't need to grow into the behemoths they often are. All the linkage could take place within the plot description, as it should really. I bemoan the fact that I can't really turn to this site for an accurate description of the plot of almost any adventure. What people tend to do is just slap the external link to DWRG, as if to say "that's his job, not ours". It ''should'' be one of our primary jobs to write decent plots here. '''[[User:CzechOut|<span style="background:blue;color:white">Czech</span><span style="background:red;color:white">Out</span>]]''' [[User talk:CzechOut|☎]] | [[Special:Contributions/CzechOut|<font size="+1">✍</font>]] 12:24, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
 
::I agree (and disagree with CzechOut). Plot summaries should be of adequate length to describe the plot.
::That said the references are useful and I don't think they should be wiped out even if there is a good and length plot description. The references help to call out information in an organised manned that a plot description can't (even a well written lengthy one). --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] 14:21, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
 
:I reckon they could be a bit longer than they are... but not as long as the ones on the DWRG. Thorough plot description is good, but not to the point where you could print it out and read it like a Target book. '''[http://doctor-who-collectors.wikia.com/wiki/User:Tardis1963 <span style="background:#0E234E; color:white">Tardis1963</span>]''' 09:37, April 10, 2010 (UTC)
:
:I agree with Tardis1963. The plot summaries on pages such as "The Three Doctors" are ''way'' too long. I think they should be revised substantially. Plus, the plot summary on "The Three Doctors" is basically just a paraphrase of the Doctor Who Reference Guide. [[User:Bluebox444|Bluebox444]] 02:13, May 18, 2010 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 23:30, 6 May 2012

Forums → Archive index → Panopticon archives → Extended plots
This thread has been archived.
Please create a new thread on the new forums if you want to talk about this topic some more.
Please DO NOT add to this discussion.

Tardis1963 has noted on several story pages, "Is the extended plot necessary? It makes the article nearly impossible to read."

Since speaking to the same point on every single article talk page would be extremely cumbersome, I've created the page so that he can give us an extended rationale, and so that we can have a single discussion in one place. The floor is yours, Tardis1963 ... CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 16:44, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

All the pages that Tardis1963 left messages on were plot summaries that had been plagiarised from the Doctor Who Reference Guide. Not sure if a forum post was necessary to resolve this / was there anything to resolve? I have rolled back the affected articles in question. --Tangerineduel 16:50, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
Well, his notes were vague. I thought he was implying that all extended plots somehow made story pages hard to read. He seemed to be arguing a point of general policy, not stating a case of specific vandalism. I strongly advocate extended plot details, FWIW. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 20:21, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, what I said on the talk pages was pretty vague. What I sorta meant was that with the plot summaries extended to the length they were, the end of the page was nearly impossible to find. It was just a mass of text everywhere, not to mention that when trying to read them it was pretty easy to get lost in the mass of text. I did think that they would have been copied from the Doctor Who Reference Guide, but wasn't sure and didn't want to accuse.
IMO, they should just be relatively short plot summaries, not extremelly long passages that could pass as a short novelisation. Tardis1963 20:44, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
Well, plagiarism aside, the one section that should be long on story pages is precisely the plot section, IMO. If the plot section were actually adequate, then these other sections, like references and story notes and continuity, wouldn't need to grow into the behemoths they often are. All the linkage could take place within the plot description, as it should really. I bemoan the fact that I can't really turn to this site for an accurate description of the plot of almost any adventure. What people tend to do is just slap the external link to DWRG, as if to say "that's his job, not ours". It should be one of our primary jobs to write decent plots here. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 12:24, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
I agree (and disagree with CzechOut). Plot summaries should be of adequate length to describe the plot.
That said the references are useful and I don't think they should be wiped out even if there is a good and length plot description. The references help to call out information in an organised manned that a plot description can't (even a well written lengthy one). --Tangerineduel 14:21, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
I reckon they could be a bit longer than they are... but not as long as the ones on the DWRG. Thorough plot description is good, but not to the point where you could print it out and read it like a Target book. Tardis1963 09:37, April 10, 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Tardis1963. The plot summaries on pages such as "The Three Doctors" are way too long. I think they should be revised substantially. Plus, the plot summary on "The Three Doctors" is basically just a paraphrase of the Doctor Who Reference Guide. Bluebox444 02:13, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://tardis.wiki/w/index.php?title=Forum:Extended_plots&oldid=1081555"