Summary/Biography text formatting guidelines

Aidan wrote:
That's not what I meant at all. So let me be a tad more blunt. This whole thing only became an issue because WilliamWade is too lazy to do a trivial edit when approving shows and my response is more of a "geez that's part of the job when approving shows, so get over it."

That may be, but it doesn't make his request unreasonable does it? The person approving or rejecting a request is ultimately responsible to make sure it complies with the policy, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to educate the users. If someone consistently makes the same mistake they're probably not aware of the rule and pointing it out to them nicely is a win for everyone.

Right now only CC's and higher can do so, so the only thing you can do is ask here. If you want to give him a nudge Gadfly, please do :)

LadyShelley wrote:
I think David's point was more all newly added shows need to follow the stated policy regardless of when it aired, not who needs to do the updating.
David's point was in response to the question about older shows not being a priority to update (if you see it, fix it but there isn't a dedicated group of folks going through every entry looking at what needs to be updated)

Yep, that's exactly what I ment. Since the policy is subject to change, there can always be pre-existing entries that don't comply. Hunting those down might not be everyone's priority, but that doesn't change the fact that new edits should be correct.

Aidan wrote:
That's not what I meant at all. So let me be a tad more blunt. This whole thing only became an issue because WilliamWade is too lazy to do a trivial edit when approving shows and my response is more of a "geez that's part of the job when approving shows, so get over it."

*scratches head* How is that different from what I said? It's pretty much what I understood you to say, and my response followed from that. I wasn't talking about old shows, which I didn't think were part of the issues concerning WW's request.

If I understood David correctly, it's also a part of of the job when submitting new show summaries, to do the "trivial edit." Presumably crazyman didn't know: no harm, no foul. As David noted, I'll let him know.

Guys, honestly, I really don't get it, what's the problem?

Formally, the users, via request, is just asking us to add some series to the database. So, when we're approving the request, we're just formally accept the fact, that given series is legit and absent from our database.

All info provided with request are (presumably) the copy/paste from other sources, which means different formatting, casing etc.

But from this point it's our job to make this new entry compliant with all the existing rules. I mean, if you're TC – it's mean that you (among other things) had been trusted to make sure, that regular user's submissions are brought into compliance with the policy before being added to the database.

My understanding from what David said above is that it's also the contributor's job to make sure that their submissions fit the site's data base policies and are complaint. It wasn't, although the issue seems to be technical (see below), WW asked someone to contact CM, several people posted to say they didn't think that was the contributor's job to follow the data policy. David said it was.

I don't see the problem, either, and in this case communicating with the contributor appears to have revealed a possible bug in the system.

-----

crazyman responded with:

I highlight the title and hit bold. Can you explain to me what I am

doing wrong as to why this does not work? I can leave the summary out if

you prefer.
Thank you

-----

So it appears that he's doing it right, But the title bolding is lost between when he hits submit and when WW sees it? That suggests that either CM or WW have some kind of processing issue. I've asked CM for more detail.

BTW, I'm really amazed with the amount of time and effort spent by some person to change a lot of summaries to "This Style" ))

It also strikes me that from what people here have been saying, crazyman (CM) is qualified to be a TC. So even if the policy was staff-only, it seems like eventually CM would have been a TC and was required to follow the supposed staff-only policy. So why delay the inevitable?

Gadfly wrote:
So it appears that he's doing it right, But the title bolding is lost between when he hits submit and when WW sees it? That suggests that either CM or WW have some kind of processing issue. I've asked CM for more detail.

Text editor is funky, we all know that.
But for whatever reason the formatting is lost or bent – it doesn't really matter. At the end Iit's a simple binary choice – you either approve it and fix whatever mistakes you see, or you reject it for whatever reasons you see.

"You bought it – you fix it" :)))

tnt wrote:
BTW, I'm really amazed with the amount of time and effort spent by some person to change a lot of summaries to "This Style" ))

You'd have to talk to David about that, he's the one who created a data policy page telling people that's the way it's done. However, I believe the issue is making sure new summaries are correct, not changing older ones. Isn't it?

Personally, given the title is in big font letters at the top of the page, I've never seen the need to have a title in the show summary section. It seems like it's treating the reader like an idiot.

It's a binary choice on the contributor's part (in theory)--do it per policy or ignore the policy--that leads to a binary choice on the approver's part.

Regardless, since it seems to be a tech issue, I've created a new thread reporting it.

tnt wrote:
BTW, I'm really amazed with the amount of time and effort spent by some person to change a lot of summaries to "This Style" ))

Most of us (myself included :) are amazed when other people do things that we don't consider important, and think that what we're doing is vital.

Human nature. :)

The alternative would be to tell everyone not to do (whatever it is). But most of them wouldn't do something else: they'd just do nothing instead.