Talk:The Americans season 4

Plot summary lengths

WP:TVPLOT suggests summaries be 100-200 words on season pages, and articles using {{episode list}} should not exceed 200 words (although I find no explanation in the template instructions). It looks like the longest summary is currently 231 words, maybe a little long, but the others are 177 and 216 words - I wouldn't quibble over 16 words. Actually the episode 4 summary of 79 words appears to be too short! Hoof Hearted (talk) 18:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

This area is shaded grey in subjection. However, the main objective in writing any summary should be articulating the gist of the episode's plot in as few words as possible. Leave a more detailed summary for a future episodic article. LLArrow (talk) 18:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Agree with LLArrow here. Less is best. If you have substantial material (read: reliable, sourced material), go ahead and create an article. Otherwise, the ep summary should be as brief as possible. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:32, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Made some edits to get the episode 1 word count down a little bit. It already was pretty concise. I was able to get rid of a few unnecessary words. Brian Hill (talk) 01:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I also trimmed some. Edited on phone so can't check word count. In the distant past when I did episode articles, I would simply have their lead summaries in the season/episode list pages with the more detailed plots in episode articles. That was also back when I edited on a computer and not a small device. Also keep in mind you're covering four separate stories: the Jennings, the FBI, the Rezidentura, and Nina. — Wyliepedia 04:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd love for you guys to get involved in some of the Game of Thrones episode articles. Mhysa, for example, is over 1200 words. Hoof Hearted (talk) 15:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Civility. LLArrow needs to be a little more careful on the civility front. Yelling "DO NOT do X" over and over again in edit summaries doesn't serve to make (his) point, but only to piss off potential allies who might otherwise be willing to listen to actual arguments.
Not worth the disruption. Civility complaints aside, de facto common law in Wikipedia allows for more extensive synopsis lengths. Longer synopses have their uses. And, there they are. It's disruptive to go on reactionary campaigns (with tirades!) to cut them down without the needed careful thought.
96.230.106.141 (talk) 06:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

How exactly can you yell through text? I'd like to know. I'm merely emphasizing after repeated disruptive edits. LLArrow (talk) 22:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

General society has had a meme that "ALL CAPS MEANS YELLING" for about 20 years now. But, it's not just the all-caps. Tone, style, and direct wording contribute to the impression. What's "merely emphasizing" to you is (sometimes) snotty bullying to receivers on the other end. 96.230.106.141 (talk) 02:06, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Incivility is disruptive

Every one else is trying to cooperate here, but LLArrow is stomping around like he owns the place. He (I presume "he") has been making reverts with snooty edit comments (like I've mentioned above), and unexplained summary reversions.
Now, he's trying to remove unfavorable opinions from this page -- opinions he even asked for when he said "If you take issue with the reasonably [sic] written summary take your grievance to the Talk page and gain consensus." Removing commentary from talk pages is almost always outrageously uncivil, as it is here.
It's time for some censure. LLArrow is trying to force his my-way-or-the-highway opinions down all our throats, and with needless nasty comments on the side. It's just not the way it's supposed to be done in Wikipedia.

Other samples:
"DO NOT revert shortened synopsis again. ..."
"DO NOT do so again. ..."
"Do something useful..."
"I deleted it because it is in violation of so many rules and standards..." (When it wasn't. LLA has his own personal very strict ideas of rules and woe be unto anyone who fails to read his mind and abide them.)
96.230.106.141 (talk) 22:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

You are obviously someone that has been offended by me in the past, but you are in error by posting this here. Take this grievance to my Talk page or some official complaint forum, not on The Americans (season 4) talk page. LLArrow (talk) 22:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

That's a fair point about where to post complaints. Posts to the talk page should indeed be civil posts about content of the article. But, incivility perverts that process, making barriers to the desired normal process sometimes quite on topic for a talk page -- by necessity.

So, if you will, let me reframe this all as:
"Incivility (here and in edit summaries) has disrupted the normal process of civilly discussing article content on this talk page".
Specifically also that:
"Deletion (by LLArrow) of the IP's attempted discussion of article content made it impossible in that instance to discuss article content on this page like we're all supposed to -- leading to the necessity instead of discussing impediments to preferred topics".

Also, no I've actually never seen you before this article.

96.230.106.141 (talk) 00:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

First Learn how to make comments properly, using colons to follow linear chain of discussion. Speaking of discussion, I will not be engaging with you any more on this season Talk page, about something that is clearly personal. Take it to my Talk page. LLArrow (talk) 02:23, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

"Permanent" and out-of-place plot point

Hello LLArrow,
You've been reverting some ordinary, seemingly non-controversial edits without explanation. Ultimately, you asserted the idea that everyone must gain consensus before making such edits, which is incorrect. You also accused "opinion", which just doesn't apply here. Are you even paying any attention? At one point you even said "...do not add any more text until consensus has been reached" when I had actually deleted text!

I've tried to elicit from you actual explanations as to why you prefer the word "permanently" or the inapplicable plot point, but to no avail. The way you've gone about things suggest you're just annoyed for some reason, or are on some mission. If you really think those edits are bad, you need to explain why. That way you will have some weight behind your position (instead of none).

Try it, man! Maybe that plot point actually did appear in E4. I made a point to check it, but who knows, I might have made a mistake when I checked it. Prove me wrong! Maybe "permanently" is apt. Maybe the two characters actually did discuss the matter in "permanent" terms, I might very well misremember.

The point is, if you revert something simple and uncontroversial like that, you need to address the "points of fact". Otherwise, the removed points of fact remain unsupported and your putting them back is at cross purposes with everyone else's cooperative efforts to be factual.

96.230.106.141 (talk) 01:18, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Sidestep. I tried to sidestep the "edit war loop" we were in by instead merging the current text with some more descriptive text while keeping it still under 200 words. I think/hope that might do the trick. 96.230.106.141 (talk) 04:16, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Do reliable sources confirm that William Crandall's real name is Vitaly Sorokin ?

Apokrif (talk) 20:01, 23 April 2022 (UTC)