Talk:Extraordinary Attorney Woo

Season 2

I wasn't sure whether to add down that there will be a season 2, digitalspy.com, said there will be a season 2, but very tentatively. whats-on-netflix.com was more adamant, saying it was renewed. I am not sure how reliable they are know. Govvy (talk) 10:46, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

 Already done by other editor(s) with other more reliable sources provided. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 02:39, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Infobox last_aired date for Season 2

As mentioned previously twice through the edit summary, the last_aired value should be the "date of the last episode aired" per Template:Infobox television#Parameters as the 2nd season is still more than 12 months away which per template's documentation quote if such a program has not aired a new episode in 12 months, "present" can be changed to the date of the last episode aired. Furthermore, there isn't a specified month confirmed either hence we shouldn't WP:CRYSTAL last_aired. In addition, it makes zero sense to me to present incorrect misleading information that the series is still airing as of today (present) when in fact, between 18 August 2022 to who knows which month of 2024, there is literally nothing new airing. Lastly, the current practice within the editors of WP:KO community (in which this TV series is part of because obviously it's Korean drama) is to maintain the "date of the last episode aired" till the first episode of 2nd season premiered, regardless, even by going by the book, it's still too earlier for such per template's documentation and CRYSTAL. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 02:38, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

It's the end of summer 2024. Is there any news about a second season? --Eliyahu S ^Talk 01:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Person first vs identity first language when discussing autism.

In many cases, people prefer to use identity first language (person with autism) to describe various conditions. This is not considered to be preferred by most autistic people as autism is seen as an integral part of their identity. Most autism advocacy groups and autism charities adopt identity first language in line with this such as the UK's National autistic society[1]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sethzard (talk • contribs) 17:56, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Sethzard, after looking into the issue some more, I've discovered that you are correct on this point; for some reason, I was under the impression that it was the other way around. I will go ahead and reinstate your edit, but going forward, please do not impose your version of an edit until after you've received a response to your talk page post; essentially, until some agreement or consensus has been reached. Thank you. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 22:50, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Special appearances

The Cast and characters subsection "special appearances" is filled with unlinked actors, most of whom only appear on the show briefly. I think there is little value in including every single actor or character with a minor role on the show, especially if neither not notable. I would like to go ahead and remove most of these, as besides not contributing much value to the article, it doesn't seem to be standard for television/film articles. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:13, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I totally disagree. Especially some of them are important characters in their respective episodes (e.g clients)! Simply having no link does not mean that they shouldn't appear in this list. There are so many other film articles listing actors without link. --Elijahhee (talk) 16:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Elijahhee, thanks for your response, for not reverting my removal of a large number of characters from the article, and for posting the warning note.

To my knowledge, most WP series pages don't include lengthy listings of every character that appears on the show, even if they are prominent throughout an episode. Naturally, I'm sure you could find numerous examples to the contrary, but I do not think this is the standard. This, more than the fact that the actors in question are unlinked, is the reason I removed any character that only appears in one episode. Please let me know your thoughts on the point I've made. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 00:46, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Cancer

I recently copyedited a part of the Episode section, namely this bit:

At the hospital, Myung-seok has been diagnosed with Stage III stomach cancer.

which is factually incorrect. In truth, the character's medical diagnosis was unknown and undiscussed until the character collapses in the courtroom, and his condition is learned.
With that in mind, I tendered the following replacement statement:

At the hospital, its discovered that Myung-seok has been diagnosed with Stage III stomach cancer.1

Unfortunately, that edit was then reverted with the edit summary explanation, "'unnecessary detail" 2

I have reverted it back to accurately reflect the content of the episode and the story as it unfolded from the episode priot and the subsequent episodes after. Considering that the initial contributor reverting has done so twice, I am expecting their presence in this discussion, and have sent them a message inviting their participation. I will wait a short time before again fixing the edit. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:05, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian, you can't just say "if you don't address this when I want you to, I will revert back to my preferred version". That is neither how Wikipedia nor agreement-seeking works! I've told you that according to B-R-D, you were not to revert before discussing, and now you're threatening to revert again if I don't give you a satisfactory answer, and forthwith! Please tone down the imperial attitude and try to approach this discussion with a more collegial approach.

As for the issue at hand, please explain what distinction you are pointing to between the current version of the plot summary and the change you are attempting to make, as it isn't quite clear to me. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 05:19, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Since you decided to remove my addressing your behavior privately on your talk page, I guess we get to air your problematic behavior here; so be it.

You reverted back into the article incorrect information. You refused to discuss it, except to add some anorexic - and astonishingly incorrect edit summary that neither explained your revert nor sought to resolve the matter in any way. That poses an issue for me; you've been here long enough to understand the principle of collaborative editing, and yet you seem to keep having problems actually doing that. BRD - bc you appear to have missed the memo - can be initiated by either party is a disagreement. Yet, once again you decided to ignore that. I'm positive that - without any discussion - you would have reverted yourself into an admin block, had I re-added the info.

I need you to let that sink in Rev; you must participate, and often initiate, discussions where you revert edits that are not obvious vandalism or nonsense. It is at the heart of any Wikipedia editorial discussion. You need to understand that you are not in charge of the article, or anything else for that matter. You are not the smartest person in this room, or in any room. Take your ego out of the equation, buddy. It's about treating others the way you want to be treated. Ask around; this is the way the Wiki works. Outside of an admin board, I don't want to have to discuss this problem of yours with you again.

Now, that unpleasantness aside, please express your issue with the edit that you felt the need to revert twice. After all, that is what this page is for. Tell me how the edit I made to the article was 'unnecessary detail' when it was clarifying information already in the article. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:19, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian, if you think I will engage in a dialogue with someone whose attitude reeks of contempt and abuse, you are mistaken. I've asked you to tone it down and be civil, so instead, you turned up the vitriol a few notches.

You either remove all the unnecessary ad hominem commentary, or I will stop trying to communicate, and additionally, I will report your nasty attitude on an administrative noticeboard. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:51, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Kindly excuse my reaction of your improper behavior and laughable characterization of my edits as 'attacks'. I didn't understand how you are and, unfortunately, I cannot actually remove any of my observations, even if I wanted to. There, all done. Let's move on.

Let's instead address the source of this entire, annoying interaction.

The sentence you removed as being 'unnecessary detail' was in fact a correction to facts already in the episode summary. You apparently take exception to that correction.

The point of the clarification was that it was the episode prior the one on question where the character receives the cancer diagnosis. It is revealed in the next episode. THAT was the correction of fact. Nothing more. Perhaps you could now explain why you reverted it as 'unnecessary detail,' so we can work towards a collaborative solution. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:48, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian, you are being disingenuous: "your improper behavior and laughable characterization of my edits" doesn't sound like the words of someone who is ready to extend an olive branch and move on; it instead sounds like a parthian shot by someone who is upset that their work has been undone and their motives called into question. I'm letting you know that if you do not drop the snide attitude, I will stop responding to you, as this is completely inappropriate. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:59, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

You wanted an apology, you got it. Move on and instead focus allllllllll of your attention on the the edits, and not your hurt feelings.

AGAIN, The sentence you removed as being 'unnecessary detail' was in fact a correction to facts already in the episode summary. You apparently take exception to that correction.

AGAIN, The point of the clarification was that it was the episode prior the one on question where the character receives the cancer diagnosis. It is revealed in the next episode. THAT was the correction of fact. Nothing more. Perhaps you could now explain why you reverted it as 'unnecessary detail,' so we can work towards a collaborative solution. Make an effort to do so. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian, communicating with you isn't going to work. You insist on being condescending ("Move on and instead focus allllllllll of your attention on the the edits", "Make an effort to do so") and dishonest ("You wanted an apology, you got it". You haven't apologized for anything, so stop lying). I understand what you were trying to do with your edit, however. I still think it's an unnecessary detail, as the point is that he now has a diagnosis. Episode summaries are supposed to be succinct, and I think the existing one is fine.

I will not be responding to any further comments from you unless you drop all snark, and I do mean ALL. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 12:58, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

one last time, then.
Can you please explain your reasoning for the reverting of the copyedit as 'unnecessary detail'? Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I mean exactly that: it's an unnecessary detail. What's important to mention is that Myung-seok has been diagnosed with cancer. I doubt the synopsis requires the qualification "it's discovered that". Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 04:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

It is necessary bc he wasn't diagnosed with cancer in this episode, but in the previous episode. We learn in the later episode what was making him sick. It is the correction of an inaccuracy. Factual content is not really 'unnecessary'. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:16, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

The summary states "has been diagnosed with cancer", which doesn't mean it happened in that specific episode. Listen, you clearly aren't able to have a civil discussion without adding your brand of snark into it, like "Factual content is not really 'unnecessary'", so that's it, I'm done talking with you. I've said my piece. If you are convinced you are correct, please get a third opinion, as I'm not talking to you anymore. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I recently copyedited a part of the Episode section, namely this bit:

At the hospital, Myung-seok has been diagnosed with Stage III stomach cancer.

which is factually incorrect. In truth, the character's medical diagnosis was unknown and undiscussed until the character collapses in the courtroom, and his condition is learned.
With that in mind, I tendered the following replacement statement:

At the hospital, its discovered that Myung-seok has been diagnosed with Stage III stomach cancer.1

Unfortunately, that edit was then reverted with the edit summary explanation, "'unnecessary detail" 2

I have reverted it back to accurately reflect the content of the episode and the story as it unfolded from the prior episode and the subsequent episodes after. Considering that the initial contributor reverting has done so repeatedly, and failed to engage on the subject matter of the issue, I've listed the matter at Third Opinion to solicit more opinions other than our own. This will hopefully avoid the bizare interpersonal problems between myself and the reverting contributor from ending up on a noticeboard page, thus wasting even more time than has already taken place. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:56, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

At this time, the sentence that appears to be in question reads: "At the hospital, the other lawyers discover that Myung-seok had been previously diagnosis of Stage III stomach cancer is the cause of his collapse in the courtroom." This is not just a bit unwieldy but also grammatically problematic. That said, the underlying debate as I understand it is whether "At the hospital, Myung-seok has been diagnosed with Stage III stomach cancer." (Option 1) or "At the hospital, its discovered that Myung-seok has been diagnosed with Stage III stomach cancer." (Option 2) is preferable. I think questions that need to be considered include: Which sentence is more accurate? Which sentence is more concise? Does one of the sentences serve greater benefit to the reader than the other? My opinion is that while Option 2 may be more accurate, it's not more concise, and its increased benefit to the reader versus Option 1 is negligible. Hospitals are places where people are diagnosed, so a sentence such as "At the hospital, it's discovered that Myung-seok has been diagnosed..." strikes me as awkward phrasing. I hope this is helpful! DonIago (talk) 23:59, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I have no problem with brevity; in fact, I prefer it. However, brevity takes a backseat to accuracy. Option 1 is inaccurate; the edit suggests was diagnosed in an episode he wasn't diagnosed in; it was the previous episode. Maybe there is a better way to say it, but ignoring accuracy is the way to go here (or anywhere for that matter). - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:51, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Let me ask you this Jack: is this point of inaccuracy so glaring that it's going to disrupt a reader's understanding of events? Because while we do strive to provide accurate plot summaries, we also allow for fudging the details in the interest of being concise and telling a summary that's easy to follow. I think this should be looked at as a difference that makes no difference. DonIago (talk) 01:05, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Allow me to point out that we're an encyclopedia; we're kinda supposed to be accurate. The primary argument was not the wording of the statement, but that it was 'unnecessary'. I think - beyond a shadow of a doubt - that it belongs in the episode guide, if for no other reason, it was the point of no less than 1/4 of the series episodes. The character was coughing up blood in one episode, followed by an episode where he leaves a doctor's office completely shaken, followed by an episode that ends with him collapsing in a courtroom, followed by everyone discovering (emphasis mine) that the character has cancer. The point - he wasn't diagnosed with cancer in this episode, it was revealed in the episode. The problem that led to me listing the issue with 3O was that the other party considered changing the wording to reflect accuracy was 'unnecessary.'

I'm not quibbling about the language used - I don't care how it's mentioned in the episode article, but it needs to be mentioned, for the simplest of reasons - it's encyclopedic and accurate to mention the diagnosis in the episode where it occurs. It's the entire reason we edit here. Suggesting that we 'fudge' the facts to fit the article is not the answer, Doniago. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:53, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps the focus, then, should be on the who and not the what. "Myung-seok's coworkers learn that he has been diagnosed with..." DonIago (talk) 03:26, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm cool with that. Shall I make the change that reflects that now, or do we wait? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:30, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I think out of courtesy we should give Revirvlkodlaku (talk · contribs) a chance to weigh in. Here's hoping we've found an acceptable compromise! DonIago (talk) 04:12, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

@DonIago, I appreciate the courtesy. In fact, the compromise, and effectively the same conclusion reached here, was already achieved at this juncture [2], except Jack Sebastian insisted on reverting it, as has been their wont throughout, needlessly peppering the summary with grammatical/punctuation errors and excessively wordy edits (not to mention snarky ad hominems and comments, like the subsection title of this very thread: "Arbitrary break"). Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 04:58, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, if you want a discussion of editor conduct, that's not really why I joined this dialogue and I think there are other venues for that kind of discussion where it could be more productive.

I'd like to focus on the question of whether the wording I proposed, whether or not it came up before, is acceptable to you. Jack's said they're okay with it. Are you? If not, is there alternate wording that you would prefer? It looks like there's now wording that's roughly the same as what Jack agreed to earlier and perhaps more informative. Assuming Jack has no issue with the current wording, I hope we can move on! DonIago (talk) 05:31, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I am okay with it, DonIago. Thanks for stepping in and being the cool cucumber to sidestep the interpersonal difficulties. It looks like Rev has already jumped the gun to make the edit, so let's just let him have The Last Word, and move on. smh. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:24, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Glad I could help! DonIago (talk) 20:32, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Keep it simple and precise as possible!? Anyway, I am just a fan of the show, so I just have the article on my watchlist. Govvy (talk) 14:14, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Yep, Govvy; that was the point all along. And yep, the show is fun. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:24, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Appalling representation of mental health?

"David A. Tizzard writing for The Korea Times praised the drama for it's appalling representation of mental health..." <-- does this sound off to anyone else? DonIago (talk) 17:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Fixed it. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 08:06, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! DonIago (talk) 14:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Hanja in lead infobox

Is the hanja in the infobox an official (or unofficial but often used) version? I'm not sure where to even start looking for that.

If it isn't, is it appropriate to include? --Xurizuri (talk) 04:12, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Lead section

@Revirvlkodlaku The edits I did on the lead follows how the paragraphs of almost related South Korean TV series are. Here's a list for this year's K-drama so you can compare it. Just so you know, I'm the one mostly maintains and updates that page. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 18:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @98Tigerius, let me first point out that until you and I reach agreement or a compromise, you should not be reverting back to your preferred version.

I disagree with the importance of the point you've made. There are certainly contexts where consistency is important, no doubt, but I don't think this is one of them. Firstly, you are disputing a copyediting point, which has nothing to do with consistency. Your second contention, that broadcast time should be included, may have merit, though not on the grounds of consistency. It would rather have to be demonstrated that this is an important detail to include on Wikipedia, for whatever reason. I contend that it isn't. What's your argument for mentioning it (besides consistency)? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 22:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@Revirvlkodlaku Let me tell you also that this edit of yours was not restored but also your own preferred version by removing the day and time when it has been there before I modified the lead then the NF and RT links should be removed as per WP:ELMIN also do note about {{Netflix title}} documentation: "Note: This template should only be added to Netflix original programs, original films and original stand-up comedy specials articles". So as per WP:STATUSQUO this version should be restored (already did it). 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 00:34, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@98Tigerius, please stop reverting/restoring until this discussion is settled. I'm not sure what point you are attempting to make in your previous comment; please clarify.

As for the Netflix template, that's fine, I'll remove it. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 00:42, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

This version is the STATUSQUO. Don't restored your preferred version. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 00:46, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@98Tigerius, there's no such thing as a "status quo" on Wikipedia. You are now engaged in an edit war with no clear purpose. What do you actually want?! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@Revirvlkodlaku The edits I made has been the "practice" in any South Korean drama related articles but you removed some of the contents by disguising it as restoring and genfixes so how is it an edit war? It is clearly as day that you also want your preferred version of the lead.

Anyways, this version is how the lead should be. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 08:57, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@98Tigerius, we are each trying to improve the page in our own "preferred way", but let's make sure the edits we each make are actual improvements. I disagree with you that broadcast time needs to be mentioned. I also think it's silly to point to one version and say that's the way the lede "should be". Going forward, each edit should be approached with an attitude of BRD, and if we can't reach a consensus, then a third opinion should be called upon. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

[[Autism|autisic]]

I came here to not start an edit war, @User:98Tigerius, yes "Redirects to sections which may become articles" is not in MOS:NOPIPE I mess read.

---

So ive been doing it wrong the hole time. ill just keep doing it the wrong way - why not link to the real page?, Ive seen it linked the way I do it before Anthony2106 (talk) 13:45, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

In this page you can see [[autism spectrum|autistic]] and autism spectrum was the name of the autism page Anthony2106 (talk) 14:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

98 i have another thing i gotta tell you. I wanna put use the pipe trick like this [[Special interest (autism)|]] but it dosent work at all Anthony2106 (talk) 14:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

@Anthony2106 There's no need to lowercase the main wikilink, "[[Special interest (autism)]]" in this case, as the pipe link, "special interest" in this case, is already in lowercase. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 ^{[𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]} 14:52, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

@98Tigerius i made it lower case by mistake Anthony2106 (talk) 22:08, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

so you cant type [[Special interest (autism)|]] i tryed again and it didnt work Anthony2106 (talk) 22:13, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

@98Tigerius lately Ive been flowing MOS:NOPIPE maybe it was just hard for me to acknowledge that I was linking it wrong the hole time but now I know.

following MOS:NOPIPE caused me to make this redirect

now I wanna know whats better [[autism spectrum disorder]]s or [[autism spectrum disorders]] I know they are the same, as a result I don't know what to one to use. im leaning towards the first one as most pages dont have plural versions Anthony2106 (talk) 12:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the first and your reasoning for it. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 ^{[𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]} 13:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)