The Screening Room - 2015-03-27 (page 1 of 2)

« first day (1212 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (3318 days later) »

Napoleon Wilson

12:05 AM

Hmm, very interesting. I personally feel that many of your "not to use" tags have relevance (while your overall approach isn't bad), but it doesn't mean much what I personally think. The bigger problem I see with it is, that with such huge a question, while it is pretty explanative and does give good overview of your goals, I don't see any possibility to ever reach a reasonable conclusion on the matter. I just feel it's way too broad to give any actual result for the tagging policy...

...But you could still ask it as it is an interesting policy statement, just don't expect it to result in a conclusive policy change. Or expect millions of answer arguing for/against specific tags listed or against the whole question based on specific tags listed. For that I feel the more specific tagging questions would be more contributive.

The argument for and against specific tags should be taken care of by the categories of allowed tags stated in the post

the question isn't asking "what do you think about these tags"

it's asking "specifically, what types of tags are allowed? Well, I think we should use these..."

its the whole aliens and vampires thing again

or, the fact we blacklist movies but we have a television

and a tv-shows

Napoleon Wilson

Sure, but even then it's arguable with some of the tags to which category they count.

like how we have adaptations which covers books, games, etc

but also book-adaptations and video-game-adaptations and comic-adaptations

arguing the validity of individual tags is not productive

we need to clearly define what types of tags we allow and then stick to it

Napoleon Wilson

@Flyk Yeah, and then we have to argue to which category a tag counts.

can you give me an example based on what I've written so far?

Napoleon Wilson

12:16 AM

For example the adaptation stuff might easily be counted to either "action" or the slightly fuzzy "industry roles". Or to a newly inveted category into which all the stuff falls that I deem very relevant, like title, soundtrack, character (something like "movie aspects"). realism might be an "action". the line between "industry roles" and "industry" seems blurry. I'm not saying that whole thing's a bad idea, just that it is way more inconclusive or fuzzy than you might think.

re: adaptations: Sure, it might be, but they aren't - the tags have a small number of questions for exactly the same subjects and no followers

character is specifically mentioned as part of analysis

it's on the tag wiki and everything

I personally think that's probably more of a tag wiki problem though

maybe we have a character and an analysis

the point is

unless somebody posts it, nobody ever will

If it takes everybody editing the post to come to a perfect agreement, that's the way we should go

Napoleon Wilson

Yeah, so what? Afterall character can be paired with many things, from plot-explanation to analysis.

@NapoleonWilson Soundtrack is the name of a movie

title has 57 questions but only one follower

it's not fulfilling its purpose as a filter

furthermore, in nearly every instance, it has a movie name tag as well

Napoleon Wilson

@Flyk Well, we're not supposed to edit it into obfuscation, first there need to be consensus in the form of voted answers. That's the problem I see, people will post millions of debated answers anyway. That approach you suggest is nice, but I think we mostly already adhere to it implicitly.

making it a redundant description tag that should be mentioned in the title

Napoleon Wilson

12:20 AM

@Flyk So what, many things are names of movies.

@NapoleonWilson it's not though is it, it's just moving tags up and down the post

@NapoleonWilson we're a site about movies and TV, movie and TV names should be what we use as tags

with the few exceptions for the other things that are on topic

Napoleon Wilson

@Flyk It's purpose isn't just as a filter. It's to classify what the question's about.

do you know who Jeff Atwood is?

Napoleon Wilson

@Flyk Of course it has, but when I'm asking why the movie's title is that way, I don't want the plot explained to me or know why it was adapted from it s source material that way and not another way.

This is a post from Jeff Atwood stating how the tag system was designed to be used

if you remember, Gaming was the first SE2 site

and their subject matter in terms of application is very similar to ours

lots of tags with few questions, a few core tags

Napoleon Wilson

12:23 AM

I just don't want to end up with nothing but stupid movie tags (I know I'm exaggerating and that's not what you propose), noone's gonna make any sense of any question tags anymore then.

@Flyk I do, but do I also have to care? ;-)

@NapoleonWilson but in order to avoid having "nothing but stupid movie tags", you're willing to have content description tags and general utter nonsense tags

@NapoleonWilson well, he was there when the system was designed

I'm just saying for the purpose of I'm not crazy here

@NapoleonWilson the thing is, you're saying I'm not proposing only having movie tags, but I don't see that there would be a need for the removal of any further tags after doing this

like, from then onwards, we'd only be adding tags

that's the point I'm trying to make with that post - it's a "clean everything up and start afresh" post

Napoleon Wilson

@Flyk Oh, I know you're not crazy, doesn't need to mean I wholeheartedly agree with all those tag suggestions (even if some of them) and that awful "every meta tag is evil" approach from SE (whatever a "meta tag" is exactly, though, which I still don't completely get).

@NapoleonWilson a meta tag is a tag that doesn't stand up by itself, it requires an additional tag as it doesn't describe the problem, it only adds to the current description

ok so outside of the context of movies and tv

you've got car

Napoleon Wilson

@Flyk It was just exaggerating based on your statement that those are the most important tags. I just feel you want to get rid of too much stuff that I deem very relevant. But as I said, it doesn't mean much what I think personally. So go ahead and ask that question, but be prepared for it to not turn out in such a clean way as you hope it.

fast is a meta tag

vampire means nothing on any question that it's on, other than the question mentions vampires somewhere in its body

as an example

title doesn't mean anything because it's always accompanied by the title you're asking about

and then the question title says "what does the title mean?"

Napoleon Wilson

12:29 AM

@Flyk Yeah, but it tells me something about what the question's about specifically. plot-explanation doesn't mean anything either (and as I said, proposing deletion of that comes with a 1 year suspension).

hang on, let me find a more recent SE employee covering this

46

Q: Titles should be stand-alone summaries of questions *without* depending on tags

Titles should be completely independent of tags. A good title tells an expert whether they want to read the full question all by itself. I know this has come up multiple times before, before, but in each case, the discussion has seemed to have turned into a different question. For example, ...

discussion tags title

kinda makes the point I'm trying to say

You would prefer:

user image

Napoleon Wilson

But you see what we do here? It's exactly that arguing about how "meta" title is or if it is more "meta" than other tags or not. Just expect this to happen for each and every tag you list, pre-defined categories or not.

where as we currently do this:

user image

@NapoleonWilson well what then, we just leave it forever?

because if somebody doesn't, nobody will

Napoleon Wilson

Those pre-defined categories, while fine of course, don't mean too much when they're fuizzy enough to allow many tags to be attributed to them or not.

fuzzy enough?

...for example?

Napoleon Wilson

12:33 AM

@Flyk No, noone did say that. Ask your question, I for one would just expect more actual results from more specific questions. But maybe it works. At least it makes for a nice overall viewpoint statement, even if without results.

@NapoleonWilson If I go and post 100 meta questions, the world will implode with the trauma that occurs

Napoleon Wilson

@Flyk Well, what we just talked about. Is title an "action" tag or not?

and I'm sorry, but you should now be able to see from what I've shown you why I think the tag system is a mess

@NapoleonWilson no

why is title an action?

title is so meta it isn't even funny

Napoleon Wilson

@Flyk Because of the stuff I just told you. It says what the question's about. I'm not arguing anymore for title being important here, but for the fact that you draw a line of a perfectly well defined tagging approach when that just isn't as clean to everybody as you may see it yourself.

the only reason plot-explanation is in there at all is that is currently has a crapload of subscribers

and that means it's a good filter

title has 1

title is not a good filter

Napoleon Wilson

12:36 AM

@Flyk And you should see now why it is such a mess.

yes, because everybody's too interested in protecting their meta tags

Napoleon Wilson

@Flyk Which in turn means pretty much nothing to me. Afterall I subscribed to it, but not really for filtering or sorting.

cool, well it saves me going through the rest of the tags

Napoleon Wilson

@Flyk And...that comment is meant as...or in response to...?

nothing, if you're not enthusiastic about it then everybody else is going to be miserable about it

and that's effort and stress I cba with

Napoleon Wilson

12:42 AM

@Flyk I didn't say I'm not enthusiastic about it. Please, you would really do yourself a favour (that's not sarcasm, that would be a favour for you, as you have reapeatedly said how upset all this makes you) to not exaggerate the interpretation of people's reactions. I said it was an interesting approach and it would be interesting to see the reactions of the community. But just don't expect people to embrace it without discussing minutae...

...Just because people don't run around screaming "oh yeah, you're right the tagging is such a horrible mess, please save us from it" does not mean they don't care about it at all or don't value your contribution. It seems people always have to go full on or off with your proposals to make any actual input to you and that results in you just basically saying "screw you for not caring about all this" while this is not the case and they are just undecided about the matter, really.

Afterall it is a web community and you will have to live with the fact that not all your proposals are embraced with the highest love right from the start. That however doesn't mean your work was in vain. If it does mean that to you, then I'm sorry, but I can't do much more to console you then.

And to repeat it, feel free to ask that question, it sounds interesting, even if I for myself don't expect many exact definite results from it, but maybe some useful insights.

1:11 AM

@NapoleonWilson refresh, I've edited it substantially

0

Q: What is the name of the cantonese song in the movie Adventures of Power?

I have tried to look it up in IMDB but without any luck. It is the Song which starts when the hero tries to explain what air drumming means to him to the deaf girl.

Napoleon Wilson

1:27 AM

@Flyk Hasn't changed that much, though. But as I said, go ask. Still, I again promise you that the simple answer to a general "Can we please adopt a sensible and consistent tagging policy?" will just be "uh...sure...I guess? But don't we already?", but that doesn't mean the question or idea is bad.

Uh, anyway, "content of the question rather than what the question is about" - And right there starts my confusion again. Isn't the content what it's about? But nevermind will engage into this not before tomorrow anyway.

no, content belongs in the content section (the question body)

did you see the pictures I posted?

Napoleon Wilson

But isn't the question's content what the question is about? I don't get it, a title question is about a movie's title.

0

Q: Do you think it's time for a change in the way we use tags?

Do you think it's time for a change in the way we use tags? I would like to apologize in advance for the long post, this post encompasses a full change to how we use tags on Movies and TV by focusing on the types of tags that we allow on the site, rather than the individual tags themselves. As w...

discussion featured tags

1:44 AM

oh, so there are no arguments about it later

more tags are going to be added to that post as I continue to work through the tag list, according to the categories defined in that post

@NapoleonWilson no, the question is about movie-tag-name, the fact it's about the title is included in the question title when you ask "what does this title mean?"

title in the way we use it is nothing but a keyword already included in the content of the post

Napoleon Wilson

@Flyk Sure, but that's not what that sentence said, it said the question is not about the movie's title. But I say it is very well. The fact that you may be right, especially with the help of other unrelated arguments, doesn't mean it can't be complicated and fuzzy matter when employing other viewpoints. That's what I'm saying.

title doesn't stand up on its own in literally every use case

Napoleon Wilson

@Flyk Sure, still it's what the question is about, a movie's title.

from the point of view of the way the tagging system is designed to be used - the question is about name-of-movie

Napoleon Wilson

@Flyk Uh, wut? From which point of view was it designed?

1:51 AM

"Why is die hard called die hard?"

tags: die-hard

bad question, I'm tired

but the point is, the question title is where you determine the ...words... for ...words...

let's use a really easy one, since we're both tired

Napoleon Wilson

@Flyk And yet the question is about the movie's title, isn't it? I know I'm just talking semantics, but you can't ignore such things when bringing such totally fuzzy and non-explaining sentences like "it's about the content and not what it's about".

you don't tag twilight with vampires

even if you're asking about vampires

because the question is about twilight from a categorization point of view

Napoleon Wilson

@Flyk Right, I don't. Still vampires is what the question is about. ;-)

ok, a stack exchange post contains the following parts

question title

question body

tags

answers

question title tells you what's being asked

"what is the significance of this title?"

question body details what is being asked

tags categorizes the question according to relevant site topics

our relevant site topic is movies and tv

tags = movie name or tv show name, or a select few tags for related, on topic questions

answers provide the answer

on gaming, their relevant site topic is games

so all of their tags are games

on stack overflow, their relevant site topic is programming

so their tags are programming languages and api names

sci fi is a mess, nobody cares about their tags

Napoleon Wilson

@Flyk And which "select few"? I say a title is an important aspect of a movie and there are many interesting questions specifically about titles. I don't see that ruled out then.

1:56 AM

0

Q: Passion of Christ

Did Mel Gibson give any of his profits back to charity? He raked in a lot of money but I can't find anything on the internet of him sharing his profit.

@NapoleonWilson but title is a meta tag

It only describes the content in the question

if it was the only tag on the question, the question would be insufficiently tagged

Napoleon Wilson

@Flyk "title is a meta tag" - You're talking against a wall with that alone, it seems.

and probably off topic

for a site that uses the word "meta" a lot, you really need to learn what it means

Napoleon Wilson

@Flyk Yet this applies to pretty much any tag except for movie titles.

And I don't want to live in a world with movie tags only. I wouldn't know what any question means at all.

@NapoleonWilson you're not supposed to establish what the question is about based on the tags

that's what the post content is for?

Napoleon Wilson

1:59 AM

@Flyk "meta" itself means a massive lot in a massive lot contexts. And I still don't completely get what it means exactly in the tagging context.

ok

Napoleon Wilson

@Flyk Oh, so then that's the crap to me, I guess. Maybe I just have disagree with SE's "meta tag" fuss then.

what are movie tags

they're titles

what are tv show tags

also titles

why do you also need title

your question is exclusively about that movie

not exclusively about all titles

Napoleon Wilson

@Flyk Because I don't want the plot explained, I don't want to talk about its adapation aspects, I don't want to know how a shot was accomplished, I want to talk about the movie's title.

the reason you can have more than one tag is so you can do stuff like die-hard die-hard-2 die-hard-3

Napoleon Wilson

2:02 AM

@Flyk No, the reason is so that you can fill it with various broad to fine tags categorizing the question. At least to me.

@NapoleonWilson that's not how the system was designed

or how it's implemented on any stack exchange of a size that matters

Napoleon Wilson

@Flyk Movie tags are plain awful for sorting and filtering, too. There are millions of 1-question tags and millions of interesting tags to me that don't yet exist at all. I can't possibly follow all interesting movies, that is simply not tacklable and pretty useless to me, too.

@Flyk Well, then maybe I have to agree with "abuse".

I am going to assume ian's communication is about my meta post

since it's timing was immediately after I posted it and it doesn't say otherwise

whatever

Napoleon Wilson

@Flyk Let me assure you, it's not about your recent question, but about the previous one and the undeniable "hell" it brought along with it. Ian just didn't get around to posting it earlier.

Please do not take it again with a spiteful attitude and delete a post it was not meant against. I have read it, agree with it, and can't see how it discourages that question or your general efforts. It simply is meant to call you a bit to reason in the same way I tried.

1 hour later…

3:28 AM

I think that the meta tag issue is more important on sites that are like the original SE Computer-centric sites. I don't think it's necessary to use the same, extreme tagging standards on a site like Movies and TV. Even considering that, I think that title is the equivalent of using a tag like streaming on Arqade... the question is still about only that game, but you're discussing something specific about that game.

I also don't understand why someone following a tag is any sort of metric for it being a "valid" tag. I don't follow tags... I honestly don't know why I would. I'm here often enough that I use the most recent activity page for catching up and I don't really care if I miss anything. I also don't have particular tags that I care about any more than others... but, I don't expect everyone to use the site the same way that I do...

I don't see what's detracting about having meta tags in the first place, particularly as I find them very useful and interesting. I don't really care if it's "wrong" for SE, and there's no actual rule about how they must be used or the supermods would have killed SF/Fantasy ages ago, since their system is the epitome of what is "broken" in the tagging system.

2 hours later…

5:54 AM

0

Q: In Kingsman: The Secret Service, what do the wine choices imply?

There is an entertaining scene in Kingsman: The Secret Service where the gentleman spy Harry Hart has dinner with Valentine, the villain. Valentine surprises him by serving a dinner that is McDonalds takeout food. Valentine offers wine with the McDonalds food, and I don't know anything about wi...

kingsman-secret-service

3 hours later…

8:42 AM

@Catija I disagree, questions specifically about streaming are on topic as a class of questions in their own right on Arqade, title on here is only going to be correctly used in conjunction with another tag - it describes that the question content discusses the title, whereas streaming describes that the question is about streaming and the body of the question may not even include the word.

@Catija Additionally, Arqade operate on a policy where if they'd have multiple tags that aren't game names for simple things like "open broadcaster" (a piece of streaming software) that they roll all of these tiny tags up into a single tag because their primary use for tags is game names, just like ours should be movie and tv names.

@Catija One of the purposes of the tagging system on SE is that tags outside of your core tags (ie: movie names in our case) be useful - tags used as filters are useful and the amount of subscribers for the tag thus provide a metric to measure how useful. It's not the only metric, but it's an easily visible one.

@Catija Using sci-fi and fantasy as a defense for the way this site currently tags is hardly a defense - even a quick browse through their meta indicates they know their tagging is massively inconsistent and a bit of a mess

also: morning

8:59 AM

I'm not using it as a defense. I'm using it as an example of it being OK to not have such a strict grip on tags. No one there would let you get away with deleting tags for transporters or wandcraft... which would be first on your execution list. The world hasn't come tumbling down on them because they choose to have meta tags... they like their tags and (while they agree some of it's a bit messy)... they have no intention of getting rid of them.

sci fi is still one poor example out of over 100 sites on the network

and they know their tags are messy, they just can't come to an agreement over cleaning them because people keep chirping about how meta tags are the best thing ever

most likely, without understanding the word "meta" or how the tagging system is supposed to work

as for "Stack Exchange would get involved if they didn't like it" - they did, once upon a time

and his approach was even more heavy handed than mine

The problem is you're so hung up on how it's "supposed to work" that you won't allow for any other route... and you've admitted as much, that you can't be ok with it.

I can't be ok with people defending meta tags without understanding the meaning of the word meta - which you've all admitted to

it's an illogical argument - you're literally defending something you don't understand

He didn't force Arqade to change... he answered a meta question about tags and people decided that that's the option they wanted to go with.

Why do you keep assuming that I don't understand what a meta tag is?

I get it. I'm not stupid. I like them. Period.

@Catija He answered a meta question after merging a whole load of their tags, nuking a whole load more, and them saying "woah, why are you doing this?"

@Catija hey, I didn't call you stupid

I don't understand astrophysics but that doesn't make me stupid

we're all hitting language barriers here

please stop assuming I'm the enemy

9:07 AM

I didn't say that you said I'm stupid... You're acting like I am, though by continuing to assume that I don't understand. You'd rather assume that I must not get it because, in your head, if I did get it, I'd be on your side.

by the fact this is positively voted, I'm guessing you haven't seen this yet?

that's a much more comprehensive reasoning than I can get out before coffee AM

I'm sorry, I don't want to think of you that way... I really don't... but the things I've seen you do to the mods on this site don't make me think of you in a positive manner. Your actions and your bullheaded-ness don't make you seem like a person who can be reasoned with at all.

@Catija No, I'm assuming that because you like them, you're not aware of the history of them and why Stack Exchange does things the way they do

this is a bigger conversation than you, I, @NapoleonWilson or @AnkitSharma or everybody in here or everybody on this site

this discussion has occurred on every site in the network + meta.stackexchange.com so many times that I personally don't feel it needs to happen again, but this site uses meta tags

Positive voting on a question doesn't mean that people agree with the question's thesis. It means that they like the question as something to be discussed.

The main problem with meta tags is they use up words that can be used for the main subject matter (movies & tv) and are always used horribly inconsistently

9:09 AM

And I and other people here are fine with that. You are not.

you're fine with inconsistency?

double standards?

No... that was in response to your previous statement.

oh ok

the tagging system is supposed to be unobtrusive and easy to use. It doesn't support things like sub tags and linked tags because it's supposed to be super simple with a minimal number of tags used per question

adding meta tags to that makes it not super simple and not easy to use

I think @NapoleonWilson murdered it already, but for example, we had a tag called vampires, there is a movie called Vampires

how do you tag questions about the movie Vampires when a vampires exists for movies that have vampires in them?

how do you tag questions about the movie Soundtrack when a soundtrack exists for questions about the movies soundtrack?

damn, I failed spelling soundtrack twice in a row -.-

I'm not suggesting the removal of genre tags either - even though they're basically meta tags - because they provide technical functionality that we can't get any other way

You do the same thing you do for two movies with the same title... which, apparently, we haven't decided what to do about.

for example, when a question is tagged science-fiction, Sci Fi and Fantasy get a message in chat

@Catija sure but we ARE deciding what to do about it, we have a meta post for it

we'll probably end up with -year suffixes because it's the logical and easy to maintain method of doing it

you also need to not just think about it as "right now"

right now we have 7345 questions

a year from now, that won't be the case

even if everybody unanimously agreed to a major tag cleanup as proposed - we'll probably still have more than 8 or 9k questions by the time we finish it

as the site grows, this will become a much more pressing issue

@Flyk I'm pretty sure anime & manga also get a message for some tag as well, unsure on this one

9:18 AM

That meta post is too large to make me reply without ignoring more then 50% of the question. So i am holding my horses for the weekend.

Bit busy today.

But nice effort for sure.

@AnkitSharma most of the question could probably be ignored, I imagine the contention will occur in the 'tags that will be deleted' section

it's pretty difficult to argue against identification questions being called identification question, for example :p

I once though to purpose identification-request and make existing one its synonym but that will make it again the top tag

And i don't want to see that

one of those tags will probably be top if we went through a proper cleanup

since plot-explanation and analysis would be deleted

identification-request is pretty clean

I like that idea

For example, I'd like to know why you think "sound effects" is off-topic? Foley artists only work in TV and Film. It's as related to Film as set design or props... but it's on your list to get killed.

@Flyk nooooooooooooooooooooo

@Flyk i even though to purpose it with my other picks on that old one tag cleanup post but then i stopped due to some work and forgot it later

9:24 AM

If you get rid of syndication and tv-shows this question won't have a tag... but there's nothing else that's appropriate to tag it with.

@Flyk But the problem with it that it may attract the IDs which we already get rid off. Like ID-video or advertisement.

And if you get rid of credits what does this question get?

I am not a fan of tv-shows but not sure for syndication ( mostly to keep it)

@Catija I love credits question. They are useful.

@Flyk I feel like you need to do more research into how the tags are used because I feel that many of those "meta" tags aren't.

Hey why film-techniques, nobody can touch it otherwise i will become jasoon vorheese and kill everyone with machete :D

9:29 AM

@AnkitSharma I bet you wouldn't want parody gone, either... considering this question

@Catija syndication could be a subject in itself - using your earlier example, streaming on arqade, syndication is very much like this tag

@Catija could you classify parody as a genre?

But it's on your list of tags to get deleted.

@AnkitSharma film-techniques is staying

@Catija one thing to note many of tag getting targeting are created by me in the toddler days :D

@AnkitSharma I didn't want to say, it's big of you to admit it though :p

9:31 AM

Parody could be either a genre or not... people do parody within a film without the entire film being a parody of something.

Parody can be a very good secondary tag

satire is a genre, maybe parody is a genre

@Catija cinema-history

That's make me wonder why don't we have satire ;)

@AnkitSharma satire as a genre tag, parody as a synonym?

I hesitate to classify parody as genre because the last thing I heard you say is that genre tags should only be used for identify questions... but clearly we have two questions about parody that have nothing to do with identify.

Satire and parody are vastly different things.

9:34 AM

@Flyk both seems different to me

Parody can be sometime so cheap that we can't call it satire

I'm moving syndication into the untitled section

Anyway, it's 4:30 in the morning and I haven't slept yet.

night, have a good sleep

And here its 3:05 P.M.

@Catija Good night

I was up until 3am writing that meta post

I don't think I'm going to get anything other than that meta post done today, either

there's still so many pages of tags to go through

and it's obvious that my 3am self made a couple of blunders categorizing certain things as meta tags when they're not

9:43 AM

I like waking up till 3 , mostly do this to complete pending films or tv series.

I like sleeping though, I'm not going to get to sleep again until sometime tomorrow morning

~8am or so

and then the same on saturday night

Ahh.....

Weekens should be only for parties or travelling

I work at the weekends

the life of a DJ...

I'm supposed to make music all week

but I like sleeping too much

1

Q: Wouldn’t Underwood’s plan for Sharp in season 3 of House of Cards be obvious?

In episode 11 of season 3 of House of Cards, would it not have been obvious that Sharp was “in concert” with Underwood if she had announced her support for him, as planned, rather than for Dunbar, after dropping out? It’s explicitly pointed out that Underwood wants to avoid such an impression: ...

plot-explanation realism house-of-cards

10:15 AM

@Catija I've mentioned this under the industry role tags - since questions about foley would be on topic as it's an industry role, we don't need a separate sound-effects tag as any questions unique to foley would have foley as a tag and any questions specific about a movie would have the movie tag

oh yeah, mind blowing, during the tag cleanup process we are going to end up creating new tags in addition to deleting old ones

10:34 AM

@Flyk after reading you post, i wonder why didn't we made feed from scifi to our chatroom for related question

tried this

scifi.stackexchange.com/feeds/…

@AnkitSharma we would probably need to report on too many tags for it to be comprehensive and consistent

11:29 AM

anime's tag description is "Most likely referring to Japanese style of animation and English term for animated series originating in Japan."

I'm not saying "let's delete this tag"

I'm saying "lol tag wiki..."

Napoleon Wilson

@Flyk Oh, for that matter, then just say now I understand the meaning of "meta" but just don't see it as a problem with it. Fixed.

k

Napoleon Wilson

@Flyk Well, call the friggin movie vampires-2004. Fixed. The existence of a movie (which there are at least 17 different ones for every word in every language) is not to stop us from using reasonable tags. (Though, this more as a general argument, since vampires is indeed crap.)

@AnkitSharma And you identified the core of the question's problem. It's too broad to gain consensus on anything.

11:45 AM

@NapoleonWilson the reason vampires is crap is the same reason violence and sex are crap tags

@NapoleonWilson well, I did remove it, you're the one who mod abused the undeletion of something that wasn't yours, against the author's will

Napoleon Wilson

@Catija No, they shouldn't. That's crap. The best genre questions are those that ask general questions about the genre.

@NapoleonWilson unfortunately, genre questions in this manner breaks cross site functionality

Napoleon Wilson

@AnkitSharma Because we don't want users to emigrate there? ;-P

@Flyk Pff, then remove it if you want. I just unremoved it because I thought it was a misunderstanding-based short-circuit reaction to ian's message. But if you really want it gone, then kill it and I will the hell refrain from resurrecting it again.

@Flyk But nothing is really yours here, it's the site's.

@NapoleonWilson I am allowed to delete my own posts

Otherwise I wouldn't have a delete option

You undeleting it and then complaining about the length is just messed up

Napoleon Wilson

Well, then sorry for undeleting it, proceed with it how you see fit.

11:54 AM

@NapoleonWilson Agree on that;)

@NapoleonWilson meh, I'm not complaining about you undeleting it, I certainly thought about complaining - I am going to take issue with you subsequently complaining about it after you chose to delete it against my wishes though

Napoleon Wilson

@Flyk I did not however complain about the question itself completely. Why do you always have to take each f--king complaint as going 1000% against that stupid question. I told you it's interesting while a bit too broad. That hasn't changed.

The only reason the question is too broad is our implementation of tags is too broad

Maybe if we used tags more consistently, the question wouldn't need to be "too broad"

Napoleon Wilson

@Flyk Complaining about some friggin aspect of a question does not mean it's such an utter disgrace to warrant deletion. That's simply stupid to assume.

@NapoleonWilson you know, you guys all say that I'm "mean" or "bullheaded" or whatever, yet you're the ones who keep swearing at me

you know if I told you to fuck off, like @Catija's wonderful language yesterday, I would have been banned

but instead I get moderators privately messaging me saying my conduct is unacceptable while you guys are swearing and being vocally aggressive

Just another observation of double standards occurring on this site

Napoleon Wilson

11:59 AM

@Flyk Well, a little searing can't hurt sometimes. Irrational actions create irrational reactions. But sorry for the swearing. And I didn't call you mean.

@Flyk No, you wouldn't. It's chat afterall.

no, but since there's only two mods and two users active in this room, and one user called the other user mean and got starred, that means one of the mods starred it

Napoleon Wilson

@Flyk It's not your swearing that's inacceptable, though. Your general behaviour is worse than swearing, disregarding any negligible language.

No, only the fact I disagree with you is unacceptable

Napoleon Wilson

@Flyk Well, maybe that mod rather starred it for "bullheaded". And I don't need to agree exactly with the word "mean" to star the general message. It's just a word, really.

you're mistaking bullheaded for "backed by years of discussion on the Stack Exchange network on this exact topic"

I will accept that sometimes I assume part of the conversation already occurred with you guys when it didn't

but ultimately - this exact discussion we're having already has a conclusive answer from Stack Exchange themselves

12:03 PM

-3

Q: What is the current movie named 77..?

Since the movie was named a number I had difficulties searching for it. Can you tell me what the movie is, new science fiction movie with number in its title like 77...

identify-this-movie

Napoleon Wilson

@Flyk No, the way in which you do so. But nevermind. Feel free to delete that meta question if you want. I'm outta here. I'm not going to start the day with another kalina-discussion. I rather try to think of a proper response to that interesting meta question, if it is still there when I come back.

Not a single close vote

@NapoleonWilson It will be, I think we need to fix our tagging system

Napoleon Wilson

@Flyk Yeah, I know, we're all total SE noobs here and you have to enlighten us first, as much I understood.

and I'm still looking through tags

@NapoleonWilson I've never said you're a noob

12:05 PM

New name for room "The tagging room"

@AnkitSharma once tags are done it will need renaming to "the great obsolete comment cleanup room"

Napoleon Wilson

@Flyk I know... sigh, it was just a word extrapolated from previous discussion.

@NapoleonWilson you know, if I didn't like you, or ian, or Ankit, I wouldn't have voted for you, and ian, and Ankit

Napoleon Wilson

@Flyk Sure, thanks.

@Catija when you're next here can you give me examples and we can go through them and reorganize the list/discuss

Napoleon Wilson

12:15 PM

I just fear that a few little votes on that huge question caused by people who didn't read the whole-thing 100% and just agree with the general idea will lead to you taking every word and tag classification in that question as gospel and to implement immediately, while it is the more specific tag categorization that is of actual interest for a really existing cleanup. So yeah, that question's fine, just don't kill all those tags once it has a score of 4, please.

12:44 PM

understood, give me a second, I shall clarify that to save you the stress

check ze post

nice big box at the top

1:12 PM

Well, guess I don't have to worry about my trip wrecking my visit streak. Somehow didn't visit during the right time yesterday....

@MattD :(

Still going strong on SO, though. But I don't care about that badge as much there.

I missed one on 97 days once

still don't have it on that site :(

Oh man, that's way more painful than missing it at 54 days.

1:53 PM

I'm at 91 days here...

nearly there!

@TrishLing I hate you, but I hope you get it.

2:10 PM

0

Q: British acting stock company

UK, probably 1980s, set in a regional stock company -- affair between stage-struck young woman and (director?) (leading man?). I thought I remembered Alan Rickman, but can't find it in his filmography.

identify-this-movie drama romance

1 hour later…

3:27 PM

0

Q: How does Cole get from the First World War to 1996?

In Twelve Monkeys, Cole is repeatedly sent back in time, and after some period disappears and returns to the future. Most times we see him back in the "interrogation room" strapped into that chair. But the second time he appears during World War I, where he gets shot in the leg. Next thing we kn...

plot-explanation 12-monkeys

« first day (1212 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (3318 days later) »

Transcript for

Mar '1527

The Screening Room

“We are all the pieces of what we remember. We hold in ourselv...

mod-rage sarcasm-at-its-finest sardonic

join this room
about this room

00:00

06:00

12:00

18:00

all times are UTC

site design / logo © 2024 Stack Exchange Inc; legal

mobile