Queen of Swords

I have been the main editor of QoS since about September last year when this show was first shown in the UK seven years after cancellation. As for the cancellation section, I only wrote the last line from a youtube note. This shows only info comes from Anthony de Longis website, archives of the defunct QoS website and the French DVD compared with the broadcast american version. For any show to be cancelled is probably poor ratings to costs and this was a very expensive show to produce compared to other Fireworks productions ie La Femme Nikita, Adventure Inc etc. As for Trivia sections, I know some editors are not so keen and I could move my entries re the horses to "production notes". Let me know, I have complied with other senior editos to keep this article going as they want itREVUpminster (talk) 18:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Preview

How do you know that previewing before saving would have changed the lack of parenthesis here? Dreadstar † 17:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

How do you know that previewing before saving would have changed the lack of parenthesis here?

You are arguing against previewing edits before saving? If the editor had bothered to check his text before saving the page, he would have seen — contrary to an apparently common belief — that formatting text as a link does not automatically apply any other formatting to the text. I trust that it was not his intention that the character's name be presented as "V.C. Cameron Burgess Meredith"; if it was, then you are probably right, and the user is too careless to be bothered with clarity and accuracy, and probably will never ever spell check his work. If users don't already know how wiki markup works, previewing their edits before saving will help them learn. The "Show Preview" button is there for a reason. It is always a good idea to preview your edits before saving, even if you already think you know what you are doing. Wikipedia recommends on every edit page that you do preview edits before saving. It would seem to be common sense, yet so many people obviously don't follow it because easily-avoided formatting mistakes are all too common. 71.200.138.188 (talk) 18:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

You're making several bad faith assumptions here, which I think is an extension of your original edit summary. The act of leaving out parenthesis seems like a simple mistake to me, yet you're blowing it into an editor's "carelessness" and lack of "clarity and accuracy". Using preview is a good idea, but I'm not sure that was the problem here - generally not using preview leads to multiple edits by the editor making the edit to fix mistakes. You don't even know for sure that editor didn't use preview. Those parenthesis have been missing for over a year...so any accusations at this late date are ridiculous. Dreadstar † 18:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC) So your real argument is that, because the error was old, it must therefore have been unintentional and not one of ignorance? I'm sorry, that's completely illogical. There is no relationship between the age of an error and its cause. Just because others are just as unknowledgable about proper formatting and as the original editor and have failed to correct the error "for over a year" doesn't plead "innocent mistake", it highlights a major procedural problem. I've yet to see an article here that didn't feature similar errors, by multiple editors. That's a pretty widespread problem, and it's got nothing to do with "bad faith". You're saying that he might have (but we "don't even know for sure") used preview, but consider this: if he did and he didn't correct it, he either made a careless mistake (by not paying attention to the formatting of his edit), or he was ignorant of proper formatting and therefore saw no mistake. There is no other possible scenario: he had to have been careless or ignorant. That's not bad faith, that's an ongoing problem that needs to be addressed. 71.200.138.188 (talk) 20:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC) IP-you're making a mountain out of a molehill, just go fix it. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC) Thanks Rlevse, you hit it right on the head. My "real argument" is that it was a simple mistake, not this huge act of "carelessness" and "lack of clarity and accuracy" that this IP is making a mountain out of. Dreadstar † 18:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

---