User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-6433721-20130324051043/@comment-188432-20130325060707: Difference between revisions
(Bot: Automated import of articles) |
m (Bot: Automated text replacement (-'''User:(SOTO/Forum Archive)/(.*?)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)'''\n([\s\S]*)\[\[Category:SOTO archive posts\]\] +\7\2/\4-\3/\6-\5)) |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Okay, this is a tricky one to talk about because you've tried to put it in different locations on the page, and with different words. | Okay, this is a tricky one to talk about because you've tried to put it in different locations on the page, and with different words. | ||
Line 20: | Line 19: | ||
But where we are right now seems to be fine. | But where we are right now seems to be fine. | ||
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude> | <noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|The Panopticon/20130324051043-6433721/20130325060707-188432]]</noinclude> |
Latest revision as of 00:07, 28 April 2023
Okay, this is a tricky one to talk about because you've tried to put it in different locations on the page, and with different words.
In your original edit, you're trying to offer a lot of speculation to explain it. This is not a good idea on a story page. In particular, italicised sections, like the whole of your last sentence are not allowed. Will you find such italicized explanations elsewhere? Yes, but these persist from a much earlier era on this wiki. They are impossible to stamp out with a bot. But they are removed manually wherever they're seen. Had I encountered the page in this initial construction, I wouldn't have completely removed the reference, but I would have redacted it to just this:
- The front page story from the newspaper that Amy is reading in Central Park is Detroit Lions Win Superbowl.
A behind the scenes section on Detroit Lions and Superbowl could then have been used to explain the divergence between the RW and the DWU. Still, though, I would have kept the language very much less speculative than what you did. I would have left it at, "The Detroit Lions have never actually won a Superbowl in the real world."
I don't think you have proof that the production team were making an in-joke. So you really can't say that. All you can do is point out that this eventuality hasn't occurred in the real world.
Also, I think your point about the trees and the timing is either a) factually wrong or b) so technically correct that it might as well be wrong. To my eyes, the trees in several shots look to have incoming leaves. It's not a million miles away from possible that the leaves could be incoming on or about Super Bowl Sunday in Central Park. Unusual, perhaps, but with a warm winter, possible. Here's a report from 2011 about incoming leaves in TN at 1500' elevation in mid-February, which would work out to be roughly the equivalent of NYC at sea level. If the Super Bowl were held one week later, and there was an unusually warm winter, you could end up with new leaves around Super Bowl Sunday. Maybe once every hundred years, sure, but it's so barely on the edge of "wrong" that it's not worth remarking upon. If they were fall leaves, I'd absolutely say that you could talk about it. But those are clearly spring leaves (and we know that the location shoot did indeed happen in the spring).
After that initial edit was removed, you tried to put it under "Production errors". I'd concur with Shambala108's opinion that it doesn't belong there. It's definitely not a production error, because nothing here is other than what the production team wanted. They meant to say "Detroit Lions". They likely used "Superbowl" instead of "Super Bowl" to avoid trademark issues, as you've noted above. They chose the time to go on their location filming. So there's no error that I can see.
So where does this info go? It goes exactly how SOTO has it right now: The Angels Take Manhattan (TV story)#Sports from the real world. SOTO was a little bit too keen to keep your wording for the BTS sections of Superbowl and Detroit Lions, but as for the Angels page, he's got it just right.
And you were right to think that it somehow belonged on the story page.
And Shambala was right to think that a lot of what you put on the page was crossed the T:NO RW line.
But where we are right now seems to be fine.