Talk:Lights of New York (1928 film)

message: I'm a little bit confused by what exactly is meant (under "Production") by "It used to be a silent film, but the silent version is now considered a lost film and only the sound version survives."  While there are a couple of silent movies that used the same title, they're not the same story at all (if you can believe the synopses), and I haven't yet found a record of a silent version of the  1928 Vitaphone film, unless the studio made a silent version after the fact by dropping intertitles into the print. Could somebody come up with a source? I'm tempted to strike the whole thing otherwise. --Enwilson (talk) 16:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind...I found so many other interesting things while researching that one bit that I ended up rewriting the section. --Enwilson (talk) 18:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: "Used to be a silent film"?

message: Beyond My Ken, would you please have the courtesy to explain your recent revert of my edit at this article? The effect of the edit I made was to alter a link so that users are taken directly to the article The New York Times instead of indirectly through a revert. I have made such edits repeatedly at many articles, and almost never have they been reverted. So I would have thought that my edit here was absolutely uncontroversial and harmless. Why, exactly, would you revert it? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:NOTBROKEN. BMK (talk) 00:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Beyond My Ken, that's not good enough. That guideline states, "There is usually nothing wrong with linking to redirects to articles. Some editors are tempted, upon finding a link to a redirect page, to bypass the redirect and point the link directly at the target page. While there are a limited number of cases where this is beneficial, there is otherwise no good reason to pipe links solely to avoid redirects." In other words, it does not say that you never bypass a redirect, that there are cases where doing so is beneficial. I submit that this is a case where this is beneficial. It means that the words "(Redirected from New York Times)" are not present at the article The New York Times when users click on the link. This makes using Wikipedia that much smoother and easier for readers. You had no business reverting me. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NOTBROKEN gives a series of "Reasons not to bypass redirects" and not one of those reasons applies here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.  It's called "common sense".  Get some. BMK (talk) 00:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an irrelevant statement that does not answer a single point I made. I gave a reason for thinking that bypassing the redirect was helpful; you ignored it, not giving me one reason to think I am wrong. Now, can you give a reason for your position? If not, you should not have made the revert. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:16, 15 November 2015 (
===Third Opinion===
A third opinion has been requested.  I am not entirely sure that I can provide a third opinion, because I understand BMK's argument that there was no need to bypass the redirect, and leaving the redirect in rather than piping it appears to be consistent with the redirect policy, but I don't understand FKC's argument for removing the redirect and piping the link.  Either treat this as a third opinion to keep the redirect, or treat this as declining a third opinion due to inadequate discussion.  I am removing the third opinion.  If FKC can provide a good argument to bypass the redirect, I am willing to offer another third opinion.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

text: Also, be civil.  An argument over a redirect link isn't worth the anger that is being expressed.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I did try to explain myself. As I noted, if you bypass the link, then the reader avoids seeing a message that he or she has been redirected. Personally, I find messages of that kind irritating, so I tend to assume (rightly or wrongly) that other users do so as well. You are free to agree or disagree with me, but I did give a reason, and I would like a rational response, thank you. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: What you are saying is that redirects should be bypassed under most circumstances because the redirect message is annoying.  That isn't what the guideline says.  None of the reasons given in the guideline for bypassing a redirect are applicable.  I suggest that you publish a Request for Comments to change the guideline and give editors general authority to bypass redirects.  My guess is that the RFC will fail, because most editors appear to be satisfied with the guideline as it is.  Does that answer your question?  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert 

message: A third opinion has been requested.  I am not entirely sure that I can provide a third opinion, because I understand BMK's argument that there was no need to bypass the redirect, and leaving the redirect in rather than piping it appears to be consistent with the redirect policy, but I don't understand FKC's argument for removing the redirect and piping the link.  Either treat this as a third opinion to keep the redirect, or treat this as declining a third opinion due to inadequate discussion.  I am removing the third opinion.  If FKC can provide a good argument to bypass the redirect, I am willing to offer another third opinion.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, be civil.  An argument over a redirect link isn't worth the anger that is being expressed.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I did try to explain myself. As I noted, if you bypass the link, then the reader avoids seeing a message that he or she has been redirected. Personally, I find messages of that kind irritating, so I tend to assume (rightly or wrongly) that other users do so as well. You are free to agree or disagree with me, but I did give a reason, and I would like a rational response, thank you. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: What you are saying is that redirects should be bypassed under most circumstances because the redirect message is annoying.  That isn't what the guideline says.  None of the reasons given in the guideline for bypassing a redirect are applicable.  I suggest that you publish a Request for Comments to change the guideline and give editors general authority to bypass redirects.  My guess is that the RFC will fail, because most editors appear to be satisfied with the guideline as it is.  Does that answer your question?  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Third Opinion