Talk:I Am Legend (novel)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

"Far too long"[edit]

Since you are obviously very new to Wikipedia:

  1. WP:TNT is not an "I win" button. It's an essay, not a guideline or a policy. Learn to defend your reasons.
  2. And yes, I agree that the plot contains some unnecessary detail (for example the dog subplot), but it is not as bad as you think it is. Because if you think that WP:PLOTSUMMARIZE (which incidentally, is also just an essay) is simply talking about avoiding TL;DRs, then you didn't actually read it. WP:PLOTSUMMARIZE explicitly says that there is no set universal length. Neither does it say a too lengthy plot summary is a fatal flaw that must be deleted. What it does say is that necessary detail must be maintained. This is the primary requirement. Everything else is secondary. And removing it altogether is definitely unwarranted.
  3. By necessary detail, I'm talking about the answers to questions like "Why is it called I am Legend?", "Why is it considered the archetype for the zombie genre?", "How does it end?", etc. The current summary answers that. Your replacement does not. And again, it bears noting that blurbs are not plot summaries, no matter what IMDB might think. We need actual plot summaries, with spoilers and everything. Not teasers.
  4. This is the actual guideline for plot summaries in articles about novels: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Novels#Plot. Emphasis mine:
Plot summaries should be concise and an integral part of the article. Three or four paragraphs are usually sufficient for a full-length work, although very complex and lengthy novels may need a bit more. Shorter novels and short stories should have shorter summaries.
A plot summary should avoid reproducing the work being discussed. Instead, it should summarise the work, touching on plot, important events, character developments, etc. In a longer work, every conversation and event does not need to be mentioned. Size of the plot summary should be roughly proportional to the size of the plot. This is not always equivalent to the length of the work, since some plots are complex and dense while others are simple and straightforward.
Spoilers should not under any circumstances be deleted or omitted, as doing so directly contradicts the Wikipedia-wide content disclaimer. In short, Wikipedia contains spoilers; please respect this policy.
The current plot summary has 9 paragraphs, and they're short ones. That's a length overflow of only half the recommended plot summary length. -- OBSIDIANSOUL 19:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I believe this opening statement is one of the most condescending I have encountered on Wikipedia to date. Jacona (talk) 21:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Certainly not as condescending as being basically ordered to "rewrite it now, while I grade your efforts" in lieu of providing an actual discussion. -- OBSIDIANSOUL 01:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your opinion. I'm sorry you disagree with my edits. I'm also sorry you don't think that the statement "Since you are obviously very new to Wikipedia:" is condescending. You are probably correct, bullying would be a more appropriate term. Jacona (talk) 02:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh stop with the melodramatics and learn to WP:AGF. If you were truly a new user that could be scared away by statements like that, I wouldn't have WP:Bitten you. I've helped enough new users in the past to know that at least. You're new, experienced enough to know at least most the guidelines, but not experienced enough apparently to know what WP:TNT is for. What you did was inappropriate and offensive as well, and you know it.
I have little patience for deletionism, especially ones bureaucratically motivated, when it's not paired with a willingness to also WP:SOFIXIT. There's enough to do here without unnecessarily increasing the workload of volunteers with misguided WP:Wikilawyering. Now if you don't actually have anything to say with the rest of what I posted, I'll go back to writing articles.-- OBSIDIANSOUL 03:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Your lack of patience and assumptions about motives are noted. I believe you really do have the right idea! Please go back to writing articles to improve Wikipedia immediately; that should be more productive for Wikipedia than making comments about other editors experience and motives. Thanks again for your attempts to improve wikipedia! Jacona (talk) 03:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Ah, the irony of politely worded sarcasm from someone who claims to be the victim of condescension. ;) You should take your own advice you know. Everything you've accused me of, you are displaying in abundance. -- OBSIDIANSOUL 03:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to offend you. I've let you have your way, and let you have your say. There's not much else I can do to appease you. Jacona (talk) 03:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)