MichaelMaggs

[1] If the community consensus is that the first edition cover should always be displayed when available, then Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Novels#Images needs to be changed to reflect that. If on the other hand it is sometimes preferable to display a later cover if a later edition is better known, And Then There Were None seems like a clear-cut example of that. I was surprised to see that there appears to be somewhat of a consensus to display the original cover, but perhaps people are focusing too much on the nature of the title itself and not on which title is the best known. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 22:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree with you that given the history of this article, the issue deserves full discussion on the talk page, with proper consideration given to both views. If you agree, I'll open a new section on that page and we'll see what happens. You shouldn't unilaterally change Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Novels#Images to your interpretation of consensus on this specific cover, though, as that's a different and much broader discussion. I'm rather busy tomorrow, so give me a couple of days. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:16, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Considering that And Then There Were None has 300 page watchers, whatever happens there should have a bearing on the guideline. Also, MOS:NOVELS did not seem to be well-maintained, so that kind of change seemed reasonable. I wasn't even saying that you should always use the first-edition cover, just that that seems to be the opinion of some users. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 19:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have opened a discussion on the talk page for many descriptions to form a consensus on some aspects of short description formatting. Your input would be greatly appreciated. -1ctinus📝🗨 13:53, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand why you rolled back my description of the Mario 64 section of the mondegreen page. It currently states that the line was replaced in the remaster, which-- while true-- was based on the changes in the Shindou version, which came first. I'm not upset at all, I'm just confused. - RemedyReverie (talk) 12:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, can you identify the exact edit please? You have not made any edits to the Mondegreen page under the username RemedyReverie. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:55, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's this one. - RemedyReverie (talk) 11:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I just saw that someone changed it again, it's more accurate now. Sorry if I wasted your time or did anything of the sort. - RemedyReverie (talk) 11:52, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

No problem at all. Thanks for asking. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

(Might be worth linking here the start of this discussion on my talk page.) Unnamed anon (talk) 08:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I'm glad that you, me, and the IP have been able to fix the plot summary of And Then There Were None to be less verbose, and I think the plot summary is in a very good state now. However, I'd like to give a friendly comment on a pattern I've noticed. Whenever you disagree with some changes in an edit(s) that spreads across multiple paragraphs, you usually only give your issue with changes in one of the paragraphs, but revert the full edit without any comment on the other paragraph(s). This forces me to think about whether you disagreed with every change in the edit, or just what you commented on.

For example, I completely agree with your reasoning for reverting the last paragraph in this edit, namely the choice between "ensure" and make sure", as well as your idea that directly using Christie's language makes sentence stronger. However, you also reverted my trimming of the island search (carry out a careful search to search the island) and Vera hanging herself (Vera returns to the house to find a noose and chair arranged in her room. to Vera returns to her room, where a noose and chair are arranged.) without mentioning them at all. Even though I agreed with your reasoning for the last paragraph, I have no idea if you opposed the trimming on the other two paragraphs as well. I'd like to suggest that if you disagree with some contents an edit, carefully look through what you disagree with, and leave intact the parts that you think may be fine.

Anyways, like I said, I'm glad that you, me, and that IP have been able to work constructively on reworking the plot summary, and like I said it's in a good state now. I just wanted to voice my observations about how you revert large scale edits but only mention problems with a few aspects. Hope that if we run into each other again we can continue being productive. Thanks, Unnamed anon (talk) 07:17, 16 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

This was a revert of an edit you made including multiple different changes, with a one-word summary simply reading "Trimming". With my revert I addressed some but not all of the major issues, saying "Don't think the shooting itself ensured a match; he had to arrange it very carefully. And the change to the last sentence makes it much weaker than Christie's own words, "ten dead bodies and an unsolved problem"". That was intended to provide you with useful feedback. I could have simply said "Not an improvement" and left it at that.

If you make big edits with multiple undifferentiated changes, you can't then reasonably expect other editors to spend time picking apart your edit and responding to each specific change individually. I had already expressed my concern about this on your talk page, saying "You have been asked to make edits one by one, for discussion, but you have ignored that request". This is another example of the same issue. This edit summary, in which you attempt to shame a fellow editor for not responding as quickly as you would like is also not ideal. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

• I apologize that you felt I had been shaming you in that edit summary; that was not my intent at all, and in hindsight I can see how you made that mistaken assumption. I was simply trying to acknowledge which parts of your edit I was leaving intact and which parts I was trimming again, to make it clear that it was a WP:BRD edit. Again, I want to make it extra clear that it was not an attempt to shame you, I was simply trying to drum up some friendly discussion in case it would be necessary.
• Thank you for explaining how you had intended for your edit summary in the revert to be feedback. As for "one by one", I thought that your issue with my pattern was that I had made a bunch of rapid edits that were hard to keep track of. I thought that saying that I was trimming the word count, in a single edit rather than multiple, would make it easier for you to keep track of my edits in case you wanted to review them, even if the edit spread across a few paragraphs. It would have been difficult for me as well to track what to trim through multiple edits. I apologize; I wrongly interpreted your "one by one" advice as I shouldn't make more than one edit to a page until another user comes to that page, rather than the issue being that I make big edits that are basically multiple in one.
• If I see many sentences or paragraphs that need to be trimmed to make the section flow more naturally, what would be a good practice then? Change one paragraph in one edit, then immediately afterwards change the next paragraph in another edit, etc.? From your advice right now, as well reading the Wikipedia:Good editing practices essay, it looks like that's the case: That way other editors have a chance to look it over, and can revert that single edit without undoing anything else. In other words, if I had made three separate edits to the three paragraphs, and maybe with edit summaries along the lines of "trimming paragraph 2", "trimming last paragraph", etc., would it make it easier for you to know to only revert whichever specific change you found issue with? (Bolding the main points as TLDRs). Unnamed anon (talk) 08:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Yes, making a series of smaller edits that other editors can respond to individually can be good practice, especially where text is under active collaborative development. It avoids what happened here, namely a wholesale revert of many smaller edits, some of which are fine and could have been accepted without discussion. There's nothing normally wrong with making many different changes in one edit – we all do it, and it's quicker and more efficient – but the editor always runs the risk of having everything reverted and having to spend unnecessary time engaging others in the discussion phase of WP:BRD. MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:06, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for letting me know what would be good practice in this situation. I noticed that the plot summary of Inside Out (2015 film) needed some cleanup, and although that page doesn't seem like it's under collaborative development, and decided to heed your advice by making multiple but more incremental edits. Once again, thank you for your advice, and I apologize for the misunderstandings you and I have had. Unnamed anon (talk) 09:35, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Michael, Yes, I made that note about Tycho Brahe. Though I tried I couldn't find a suitable reference, so I left it without in the hope that someone with better luck than me would find a reference and add it. No such luck, it seems, and I haven't got the time to search. If you take any interest, I can assure you Tycko did use this bon mot, or a slightly different wording to the same effect. Carystus (talk) Carystus (talk) 17:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Would be worth adding if someone can dig out a source. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Michael. I hope I'm writing you in the correct place. I have a correction to the page "Coefficient of restitution". The equation there, which claims that the "Coefficient of restitution" is the squar root of the final energy divided by the initial energy is simply not true. To explain this, let's look what happened when e=0. that mean, the collision is perfectly inelastic collision, but the final energy is not 0. (The bodies are still moving...)

The numerator should be, instead: (The final energy - the minimal energy) and the and denominator should be: (The initial energy - the minimal energy).

The minimal energy is a term that can be easily computed. I also can proof the whole claim, but prefer to do so in a different platform where I can send pictures or write equation. I'll be glad to explain everything further :) Knowledge1135813 (talk) 18:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Knowledge1135813, thanks for your comment. I see you've posted a this query on the article talk page, and I have replied there. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'll try to find, but any way, I can mathematically proof it. Is it possible to send here files, I can show you. Knowledge1135813 (talk) 20:41, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Knowledge1135813 It needs a reliable published source such as a textbook. Wikipedia facts always have to be supported by published not private statements. By the way, comments should be posted under the one you're replying to, not above. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:51, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply