Talk:Arthas Menethil

Adding needlessly to quotes

Perhaps my biggest issue (especially seeing as this has gone unchallenged since it was first added, and nobody has had an issue with it until now) is the need to add "the" or "the sword" to a quote. This is the quote in question:

Developers also designed the game so that "players can see the wrecks of the Alliance ships that Arthas set ablaze ... they can also find the altar upon which Arthas first discovered Frostmourne ... We deliberately built these aspects into Wrath of the Lich King to help remind players who Arthas is and where he came from, which we hope makes his character that much more vivid in players’ minds."

Does the word "the" need to be added before the name Frostmourne? I don't see why it does. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

First, apologies for the quotes issue. I did not know it was an actual quote from the developers when I fixing the grammar. Not everyone knows what Frostmourne is. They might think it might be a character like Bugs Bunny.

Second, a discussion is not one side simply reverting edits they do not like. It is back and forth process which includes the opinions of other users in the community on the article's talk page.Darksheets52 (talk) 09:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Darksheets52, whilst I appreciate that you've finally explained your edits and have given an adequate reason, for such a small content issue, I'm not sure this is something that requires the opinion of a heap of other users, let alone a consensus. I understand that you're trying to be civil here, but I didn't revert these edits just because I "didn't like them". And don't worry, I know what a discussion is – I've been involved in plenty of them, particularly around consensus. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

• Hi both: This is the correct place to discuss how Arthas Menethil should be edited, so I'm glad to see you both talking here. 4TheWynne has it right here: it's a direct quote, so it shouldn't be improved or otherwise changed as if the person being quoted said the words differently. We shouldn't even add wikilinks in a direct quote, although you'll see many places in the encyclopedia where editors mistakenly did that. However, Darksheets52 didn't realize it was a direct quote, and does have a point about the reader's understanding. It's a good idea to supply the context that Frostmourne is a sword. I'm now going to make that addition using (square) brackets to indicate where I have changed the quotation, which is what one should do when changing a direct quote for clarification or grammar reasons. Then I'll drop a note to you both on my user talk, but it may take me a little while because I have stuff going on off-wiki. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:56, 13 July 2016 (UTC) Adding: The article has a template saying it has too much direct quotation. This issue is an illustration of why it's better to paraphrase, or preferably summarize, when possible. Direct quotation avoids plagiarism, but it doesn't let you say things in the clearest possible way for the reader. Just a thought; if you can see a way to recast any of the quoted material as summary/explanation, do it. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

There are instructions for a procedure to follow. The article's talk page is the correct place to discuss how the page should be edited instead of one side reverts. The revert tool is for squishing vandalism and trolling attempts, it is a not tool to remove well mean changes. If it's a small content issue, it's probably best to reword it and explain in the edit summary. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Omega_Psi_Phi_Grand_Conclaves&diff=next&oldid=729657773 for example. Using revert tool isn't the way as it can be disrespectful. Darksheets52 (talk) 10:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Darksheets52, will you let this go, please? Why are you trying to continue a discussion that finished three days ago? 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:27, 16 July 2016 (UTC)