Difference between revisions of "Team Fortress Wiki:Archived discussions/Talk:KritzKast Podcast"
m (+Category:Historical pages) |
m (Archive) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | {{Discussion close|begin|elsewhere=no}} | |
| − | {{Discussion | ||
==The page is shortened by design== | ==The page is shortened by design== | ||
| Line 53: | Line 52: | ||
:Perhaps a Guest Host section? – [[User:Smashman|<span class="mod">Smashman</span>]]<sub> ([[User_talk:Smashman|talk]])</sub> {{mod}} 19:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC) | :Perhaps a Guest Host section? – [[User:Smashman|<span class="mod">Smashman</span>]]<sub> ([[User_talk:Smashman|talk]])</sub> {{mod}} 19:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC) | ||
::Or a merged {Guest hosts + interview'd people} section... A general section that talks about the other people that have been on the show — [[User:WindPower|<span style="font-weight:bold;">Wind</span>]] {{adm}} 20:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC) | ::Or a merged {Guest hosts + interview'd people} section... A general section that talks about the other people that have been on the show — [[User:WindPower|<span style="font-weight:bold;">Wind</span>]] {{adm}} 20:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC) | ||
| − | {{Discussion | + | {{Discussion close|end|elsewhere=no}} |
| − | |||
| − | |||
Latest revision as of 02:23, 10 January 2024
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.
Contents
The page is shortened by design
The previous version was marked as reading like an advertisement. It was excessively long and filled with extraneous detail. Please don't roll back this trimming, as it was approved by the moderators. If you really want to help out, write some fresh content for the page. That's the best kind of content. :> Zoolooman 17:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
There is a difference between shortening and deleting 99% of the information. Where are all of the FACTS that you've deleted? Who are the Hosts? Who have we had on as guest hosts? If you had of shortened this article without actually removing the facts then I wouldn't have a problem but as you have I am going to assume that this edit is an attack on KritzKast and will be lodging a complaint to the administrators. --B00bies 08:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, everyone cool it. I'll look into it. -- En Ex (talk) 08:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- I've restored the hosts. The reduction of the article wasn't an attack on KritzKast; rather, we're in the process of cleaning up the Wiki, including reducing articles that read like advertisements. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me or one of the other admins. -- En Ex (talk) 08:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ya might want to make this pretty clear to everyone by some sort of box, because I swear there's people talking about rolling back the page a few revisions. Also, the old content that was USEFUL, like the guest list and so on, should be restored, I believe. Bcarr 19:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- I love this "reads like an advertisement" excuse. What a load of crap. There was nothing in this page or the CP page that said anything like, "oh, you should listen to this, it'll make your life better and you'll get laid!" The CP page was trying to be both a podcast page and a community page, so it's no mystery to me (in hindsight) that a lot of things got chopped out. However, much of what was hacked out was stuff that actually happened on the show, and that has happened to this page as well. Which means the hack-and-slash job that was carried out removed factual information. Some are saying much of it was irrelevant. Irrelevant to what? If it happened on the show, and the page is about the show, then it's relevant. But this page is now protected, which I take to mean it cannot be edited by anyone who isn't a wiki mod. Unless the show hosts are wiki mods, that means the subject-matter experts are no longer the content providers. Brilliant work. JohnnyNapalm 07:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- The page was protected because Kritzkast tried to rally their fans to add as much as possible, as you can see in the history under protected by.... Please also note, that in general it is discouraged to edit articles about yourself on wikis, though I don't think we have a specific guideline for that here. Also, no content content of this page (prior or after the cleanup) required such deep expert knowledge that only the hosts themselves could add/know it. IF there is content they want to add, they can always post it here and ask a mod to add it. But once again, it is only protected because Kritzkast tried to brute force their old page back instead of using the wiki to discuss the changes. But let's not dwell on the past, let's talk about how we could improve the current article to something much better than the old one.
While I agree that a little bit too much was cut, do you really think that for example the Podkast goals and community weapon section added anything to this page?
At the end of the day the question is how much content is right for the wiki, not for the podkast creators - they got an entire homepage dedicated to themselves which they can fill at will. Which oddly enough misses nearly everything that boobies was complaining about being removed. This wiki page should be a short summary of info about kritzkast, not a replacement for the official homepage. --CruelCow 12:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)- I like how you are ignoring your colossal hypocrisy. "...it is only protected because Kritzkast tried to brute force their old page back instead of using the wiki to discuss the changes." Y'all up and decided to "shorten" the article without discussing it with them first, and then come stomping back to complain when they basically do the same.
And I don't understand why you're so damn hung up on making these kinds of pages into short summaries. You seem more concerned for the wiki, and not so much for the people who are using it for its intended purpose - a SOURCE OF INFORMATION. At the end of the day, the question should be how much content is right for the readers, not the wiki moderators. JohnnyNapalm 17:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)- It was big, it was long, we cut it, they raged. Big deal. Grow up. --Focusknock 17:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- Are you trying to misunderstand me or are you not reading my posts?
First of all, I'm not a mod. Secondly, I am trying to explain why the old article was bad and why it is blocked now to be only editable by mods. I'm not going to go into detail why nobody needs Kritzkast's permission to edit it's entry and I'm not going to explain to you why ignoring all discussion and trying to get as many people as possible to add as much stuff as possible is a bad idea. Once again you claim it was a source of information. If you have an honest look at the old page, it was a really badly written mix of information, advertising and who cares. I've explained to you before that the cleaned up version is by no means the final, perfect version. It's a fresh start, allowing us to rebuild the page into something better.
And you know what? You can help rebuild it into something better! I certainly plan to do that, as you can see at the new section at the bottom And guess what? It's being worked on right now! --CruelCow 18:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)- I'm reading your posts. I understand them, even. I'd say you're the one with the comprehension issue, but then we're just getting into schoolyard bickering. I never said it was a good idea for the revert-war, nor have I defended their actions regarding rallying their fans to just dump content here. I also didn't say you (or anyone) were required to have their permission to "improve" their wiki page. What I did say is that you (and by "you", I meant "whomever has been chopping out bits", which is at whom my comments have been directed all this time) went and made a bunch of changes without discussing it with the content creators, and now said persons are complaining about B00bies doing the same. That makes them hypocrites. Sorry if you took it all personally.
Nowhere in your comments above did you say the "cleaned up" version isn't the final version, either.
Poorly organized or badly written means it needs to be re-formatted, not deleted. I'll grant you that both the CP and KK pages on the wiki were bloated. But much of the justification for removing the content seems based on opinion. JohnnyNapalm 18:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm reading your posts. I understand them, even. I'd say you're the one with the comprehension issue, but then we're just getting into schoolyard bickering. I never said it was a good idea for the revert-war, nor have I defended their actions regarding rallying their fans to just dump content here. I also didn't say you (or anyone) were required to have their permission to "improve" their wiki page. What I did say is that you (and by "you", I meant "whomever has been chopping out bits", which is at whom my comments have been directed all this time) went and made a bunch of changes without discussing it with the content creators, and now said persons are complaining about B00bies doing the same. That makes them hypocrites. Sorry if you took it all personally.
- I like how you are ignoring your colossal hypocrisy. "...it is only protected because Kritzkast tried to brute force their old page back instead of using the wiki to discuss the changes." Y'all up and decided to "shorten" the article without discussing it with them first, and then come stomping back to complain when they basically do the same.
- The page was protected because Kritzkast tried to rally their fans to add as much as possible, as you can see in the history under protected by.... Please also note, that in general it is discouraged to edit articles about yourself on wikis, though I don't think we have a specific guideline for that here. Also, no content content of this page (prior or after the cleanup) required such deep expert knowledge that only the hosts themselves could add/know it. IF there is content they want to add, they can always post it here and ask a mod to add it. But once again, it is only protected because Kritzkast tried to brute force their old page back instead of using the wiki to discuss the changes. But let's not dwell on the past, let's talk about how we could improve the current article to something much better than the old one.
- I love this "reads like an advertisement" excuse. What a load of crap. There was nothing in this page or the CP page that said anything like, "oh, you should listen to this, it'll make your life better and you'll get laid!" The CP page was trying to be both a podcast page and a community page, so it's no mystery to me (in hindsight) that a lot of things got chopped out. However, much of what was hacked out was stuff that actually happened on the show, and that has happened to this page as well. Which means the hack-and-slash job that was carried out removed factual information. Some are saying much of it was irrelevant. Irrelevant to what? If it happened on the show, and the page is about the show, then it's relevant. But this page is now protected, which I take to mean it cannot be edited by anyone who isn't a wiki mod. Unless the show hosts are wiki mods, that means the subject-matter experts are no longer the content providers. Brilliant work. JohnnyNapalm 07:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ya might want to make this pretty clear to everyone by some sort of box, because I swear there's people talking about rolling back the page a few revisions. Also, the old content that was USEFUL, like the guest list and so on, should be restored, I believe. Bcarr 19:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Archived funniness
Hello readers. Look at the old article. Now back at the current one. Now back to the old one. Now back to the current one!
Sadly, the old one is bad. But if you start trimming it and removing all the useless content out of it, maybe it could smell like it's new.
Look down. Back up. Where are you? You're on the wiki this wiki could smell like. Anything is possible on a Wiki without regulations.
I'm on a roll.
Too too tee doo dee dee doo! — Wind 17:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- Hilarious! I now demand a video of you doing that. Shirtless --CruelCow 18:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Podkast or Podcast?
Because I'm seeing both on this page. -- En Ex (talk) 19:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Podcast is the noun, ThePodKast is their legal/business name thing for all of the podcasts they do. Bcarr 19:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Who? VGN? I'll speak to Agro. -- Smashman... (t • s) 19:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, Agro can explain it better than I can. It's nothing they're really pushing, but it's more of the venue for other podcasts to get bootstrapped and so on. bcarr (i hate making wiki signatures)
- Just type ~~~~ at the end of your comments, as indicated at the top of every talk page. -- En Ex (talk) 19:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well, yeah, but I wanted to add in links and the sub tag like y'all have set up. Kjhdalkfjhdflkdasjhflkjh. I'll just get used to wiki-editing first. That and the whole automatically capitalizing the first letter of a username thing irritates me. Bcarr 19:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Just type ~~~~ at the end of your comments, as indicated at the top of every talk page. -- En Ex (talk) 19:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, Agro can explain it better than I can. It's nothing they're really pushing, but it's more of the venue for other podcasts to get bootstrapped and so on. bcarr (i hate making wiki signatures)
- Who? VGN? I'll speak to Agro. -- Smashman... (t • s) 19:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yup, we recognise that Podcast is the noun. However, as bcarr puts it, our business thePodKast.com is pushing for all our podcasts to be refered to as podkasts therefore further ehancing the validity of the brand name. so long as people are able to find us, ie. the page is still refered to as KritzKast Podcast we are happy to have all other refernces set to PodKast. Sorry for the confusion Agro 22:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Meet the Demoman Contest
I think we should add their meet the demoman contest, especially since it was mentioned on the blog [1]. --CruelCow 12:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
KritzKast Rewrite
I will be rewriting this page. I have listened to KritzKast exactly once before and was indifferent. I have no history with KritzKast or any other related groups so bias is not going to be an issue. Please do not add to this discussion anymore if you don't have anything useful to contribute.
See User:Lagg/KritzKast_Podcast
-- Lagg 
19:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps a Guest Host section? – Smashman (talk) 19:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- Or a merged {Guest hosts + interview'd people} section... A general section that talks about the other people that have been on the show — Wind 20:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
The preceding discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.
