The Expanse Wiki
All Contributors
Nemo2012
AlbertEpstein
• 4/30/2017

[Please read] Overabundant trivia

The Trivia section of several pages includes certain "facts" that I deem unnecessary for the readers of this wiki. For example, up until I removed them, the United Nations page included facts about the current status of the UN. That was not trivia in relation to the TV series/books' UN. That was a summary of the UN's wikipedia page. This is not the sole example. Many episode pages include, just like the UN page did, excessive information that our readers would not find interesting. Take "Caliban's War", for example. Information was added regarding the procedure used by the VFX team for rendering the disassembly of the Arboghast. In my honest opinion, that is far from being classified as necessary information.

Here is what, from now on, is to be added in the Trivia section:

  • Inconsistencies;
  • Cast credits errors;
  • [!] Interesting facts, which could include, for example:
    • how the title of an episode relates to the episode itself;
    • explanation of interesting episodic titles (such as "Caliban's War", "Leviathan Wakes", "Abaddon's Gate", etc.);
    • facts about appearing characters (i.e. died after X episodes, etc.);
    • incosistencies about character biography, etc.

P.S. Not related to the debated subject, but please, check your punctuation! For example, you, Nemo2012, have been spotted placing a comma between the subject and the verb of a sentence (for example: John, has died or The governor, did not like that, etc.). This is grammatically incorrect. However, you're not the only user to misplace a comma. That is why I am asking that you be more careful when you contribute.

1 12
  • Upvote
  • Reply
Nemo2012
AlbertEpstein
1
• 7/22/2017

I don't see vocabulary listed as acceptable Trivia.  Definitions for one or several fairly mundane and pedestrian terms should be considered overabundant.  Whether definitions are given in the main body of the article page or in the Trivia section, it should be considered outside the guidelines for the wiki.  Avoid explicitly adding definitions of terminology unless that term is in the title of an episode or name of a space vessel.  Otherwise, add a link from the instance of occurrance within the body of the article to a definition on a reputable reference site.

Examples on "Bobbie Draper" & "Here There Be Dragons"

  • Asylum
  • Desertion

Furthermore, it is redundant to redefine any term on a plurality of documents every time it appears.

These terms are fairly common vocabulary and do not need an explicit definition.

0
• 7/22/2017

Asylum was explicity stated and desertion was implied.

Gunny was defined twice, that was the precedent I was relying on

Another factor that should be taken into consideration is if the term is used in common  everyday parlance, and the reason I explicitly wrote it out was based on have a precise defintion , as oppose to a rough idea of it is

PS: Mr. Epstein once stated the reason he comes to wiki , to paraphrase " What can you find here that you can not find on other mediums concerning the expanse?". The added value, as far as I can see is to provide context to the concepts  presented,  if it is not explicitly stated on tv, books or podcasts, wiki should step in and fill the void.

0
• 7/23/2017

MysticalArchAngel wrote:

 Here is what, from now on, is to be added in the Trivia section:

  • Inconsistencies;
  • Cast credits errors;
  • [!] Interesting facts, which could include, for example:
    • how the title of an episode relates to the episode itself;
    • explanation of interesting episodic titles (such as "Caliban's War", "Leviathan Wakes", "Abaddon's Gate", etc.);
    • facts about appearing characters (i.e. died after X episodes, etc.);
    • incosistencies about character biography, etc.

Definitions for those words can be found elsewhere.  You aren't adding context.  You're adding definitions. An allowance would be granted if the definition was for a term in the title of the episode which is the main subject of the page or if the definition was for a term in the name of a ship which is the main subject of the page. Aside from such allowances, interesting vocabulary should refer to definitions on other reputable sources solely by way of link

This is not a discussion.  Do not add overabundant trivia.

0
• 7/23/2017

Not so fast:

AlbertEpstein wrote: MysticalArchAngel wrote:

 Here is what, from now on, is to be added in the Trivia section:

  • Inconsistencies;
  • Cast credits errors;
  • [!] Interesting facts, which could include, for example:
    • how the title of an episode relates to the episode itself;
    • explanation of interesting episodic titles (such as "Caliban's War", "Leviathan Wakes", "Abaddon's Gate", etc.);
    • facts about appearing characters (i.e. died after X episodes, etc.);
    • incosistencies about character biography, etc.

Definitions for those words can be found elsewhere.  You aren't adding context.  You're adding definitions.

This is not a discussion.  Do not add overabundant trivia.

Notice the part I underlined, it states what could be added, it is by no means an exhaustive list.

Your Corollary:

Definitions for those words can be found elsewhere.  You aren't adding context.  You're adding definitions.

Is simply your interpretation of his directive.

If you really want to talk about overabundant trivia, that advice cuts both ways. Why does it matter that writers of the show don't care enough spell a character's name right? How exactly are you adding value?

At least, what I have added, I have taken the time to explain some of the ramifications of and what has happen to a character. I try to relate it to the real world? It is about educating and raising awareness of certain issues? Sort of like "Net Neutrality", it may be a timely issue, but how is it related to "The Expanse"?

The only reason why spelling errors were included it because you simply wore down MysticArchAngel?

In all fairness, I think we are both too close to the issue and we should allow Mystic to arbitrate on the matter.

0
• 7/23/2017

MysticalArchAngel would be prepared to assess the case.  Consider your decisions. Seek experienced outside counsel. I was giving you a clear warning. When you choose to escalate, be aware of your benefits and prepared to accept a ruling that could include severe consequences and injunctions.

0
• 7/23/2017

If you are talking about overabundant and irrelevant trivia, you should hold yourself to the same standard.

If you truely believed that, you would not mention anything about "Net Neutrality". 

I believe it to be important, but according to your own reasoning if there is no direct correlation then it should be excluded.

If anything at all, this is about power and control with you, you apparently have some axe to grind with me:

" When you choose to escalate, be aware of your benefits and prepared to accept a ruling that could include severe consequences and injunctions."

As Lord Acton once said: "Power Corrupts, and Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely"

PS: You said you gave me a warning, upon review of the thread, you said:

"This is not a discussion.  Do not add overabundant trivia."

It sounds more like a command

0
• 7/23/2017

Point of disclosure: Mystic and I have worked together on another site, name of which is not germane to the conversation,  where was I an admin. We collaborated on creating a character infobox, in which included parameters which a few select people deemed necessary. In fact, he did most of the coding, and I helped include parameters which he deemed important as well.

As far as I am concerned I was firm and fair, and I acted in good faith. I would like to think some of those traits transfer over to this site.

Mr Epstein, if you feel this is a conflict of interest, please express your concerns.

0
• 7/23/2017
AlbertEpstein wrote:
MysticalArchAngel would be prepared to assess the case.  Consider your decisions. Seek experienced outside counsel. I was giving you a clear warning. When you choose to escalate, be aware of your benefits and prepared to accept a ruling that could include severe consequences and injunctions.

Let's be clear on the concept of escalation, if anything at all your the one who choose to escalate:

You chose to include spelling errors of a characters because you found it important, and I did not say anything at time, because  I did not have any feeling for or against, and "it was important to you". If anything at all you do not want to give me the same courtesy. If your so insistent, we should revisit the matter, to paraphrase, it is a question of relavance.

I also think we should also revisit your compulsion for activism/advocacy, like "Net Neutrality" for instance. By your own reasoning , If it has no direct bearing to the site, it should be excluded. If he rules in my favor, you can never advocate for another cause again

Or we should let this go, I have better things to do with my time. But that depends entirely upon you.

Ball is in your court.

0
• 7/23/2017

It's still up to you.  I was giving you a warning.  You continue to escalate changing your argument and deflecting, looking for loopholes, disregarding specifics that directly challenge your position, generally being argumentative and turning disruptive.

Re-read the guidelines.  Ask for clarifications but don't simply ignore them.  You've been given repeated warnings at this point.

0
• 7/23/2017

"You have been giving repeated warning", don't act like it came from mulitple parties, again, Mystic gave general guidelines, he did not give an exhaustive list.

I said, I am not interested in arguing. You want to argue with me, with this "power display" of yours, and trivialize a definition as not adding context or stating a word is commonplace says a bit more about you than me.

Again ,if its mentioned, or I can prove the existence of a concept  by citing  examples in the show like:

By seeking asylum, Bobby deserted her post. The ramifications of desertion range from short-term imprisonment, demotion, forfeiture of pay, dishonorable discharge, to death, especially in a time of war ( Here There Be Dragons)

See, I made an inference, and also it is "fair game" to talk about.

You percieve the definitions as commonplace, but it is more likely to be common in military, political, diplomatic, and legal circles. As far as I am concerned, I acted in good faith and I explained my rationale. Maybe, you  want to go from link to link just to get a simple question answered but I don't.

Tobias, assigned your admin privileges in trust, emphasis on "privilege" as oppose to right. That means it can easily be taken away from you if you not acting for the "good of the enterprise" . Its not just about you anymore.

In a workplace situation, any position has a clock, a ninety-day probationary period, after which a "performance review" is conducted, to determine if there is a match. I am seriously beginning to question your fitness for this position and maybe I should apprise Tobias of the situation.

PS: Re-read thread, Mystic gave me a warning, you gave me a threat. Classifying me as disruptive,  the Nazi's and Communist used similar terminology like "undesirables" and "counter-revolutionary", so I would be weary of such terminology.

Write a reply...