Talk:Pinecest

Azdaema, I reverted the text you removed. Please discuss the reason for the removal of text from the article on this talk page. See more information here: https://fanlore.org/wiki/Fanlore:Hostile_Editing_Policy --MPH (talk) 19:51, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Broad discussions of the controversies surrounding incest shipping in general (including citations from other fandoms) do not belong on a single ship's page. They belong on the incest page. If its to be on this ship's page, talk about how its specific to this ship. --Azdaema (talk) 01:33, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I read the page name as pine zest. Too much time for baking and strange recipes. /o\ --Doro (talk) 09:32, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

No need to sound aggressive about it Az (forgive me if your tone wasn't actually meant to sound that way), MPH only reverted your change because a large amount of text was lost without any note on the history page nor discussion about it in the talk page beforehand. I believe large changes like that are specifically looked out for to watch out for hostile editing and/or vandalizing. It's healthy to question large deletions. That said, personally I don't think using another fandom as a reference to a broad controversy like incest is any issue, since multiple fandoms can and do have different views on it. Incest and its discussion isn't confined to the Pine twins, and other editors are going to have their own opinions on what is and isn't appropriate or useful on a page. I don't think there's anything wrong with having a small paragraph or two about a larger controversy like that that then links to the main article, as many articles do just that. I do however like your addition that made the controversies more digestible while still leading easily to the main articles. Good job. Perhaps just remember to leave a note for the history page and/or leave a comment in the talk page before deleting 800+ bytes of another editor's content so others are less suspicious. Patchlamb (talk) 17:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I know the restored content has been deleted again, and while this isn't the correct procedure, I agree with the deletion. This content is included word for word on the incest page, with all its references. I think a link to the incest page is sufficient in this case. (But that's just my opinion and if anyone thinks the content should be restored, please comment on this page)

In future, editors should consider using the summary to explain edits - whether its copying info from one page to another, or deleting content. It makes for a quicker resolution to contentious edits. And edits are generally less likely to be reverted if we know exactly what's going on. --Auntags (talk) 19:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I think it is a good, concise edit :) Even if I'm personally fine with pasting some snippets from other pages, I still think the shorter edit explains it in a better way than I could have (imagine a thumbs up emoji here) Patchlamb (talk) 00:35, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I stand by my edit, but apologize for not leaving an edit summary explaining it. That was an oversight on my part. I'll make conscious effort to remember to include edit summaries in the future. --Azdaema (talk) 01:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)