Talk:The Master of Disguise

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Comedy Low‑importance

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Gloria Estefan#Mid-1970s through the 1980s|Miami Sound Machine]] The anchor (#Mid-1970s through the 1980s) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Untitled[edit]

Why does the text say that the movie "was thought to be" a critical failure? What does that mean? Did someone later prove them wrong on this? I'm changing the wording. I assume no one objects. 24.127.52.15 04:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

?????[edit]

i love this movie.i understood most of the disguses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.250.161 (talk) 13:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Master of Disguise (book)[edit]

"Master of Disguise" redirects here... — However, there is a book by that name by Tony Mendez from which Argo (2012 film) was adapted; (there is no article for Master of Disguise (book)). ~:74.60.29.141 (talk) 18:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quote[edit]

"you're a tall glass of water, and I just love moisture master" - Danger^Mouse (talk) 16:18, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Continued removal[edit]

I've been drastically shortening this article; it was clearly written originally by one or more fans of the film. I agree with the recently added note which queries the deleted scenes etc - I would propose just removing that section altogether - if these scenes were deleted from the film, they were not really part of the film: QED! I didn't want to keep removing material myself, however, until I was sure that another editor felt the same way I originally felt about this page.Cpaaoi (talk) 19:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Too many film articles get stuffed full of unsourced trivia: other films parodied, impersonations in the film, post-credits scenes, deleted scenes, other actors allegedly considered for roles, etc. Other than the basics (plot summary, release info, etc.) and sourced material (reviews and such) you'll get nothing but thanks from me.

That said, I have to question your statement about "one or more fans of the film". I have my doubts that there could be more than one fan of this film. - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I always try to keep an open mind and a positive outlook!Cpaaoi (talk) 01:53, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take it out in that case, and if anybody feels strongly opposed, they can always make their point here.Cpaaoi (talk) 01:56, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relocated from my talk page (Cpaaoi (talk) 07:42, 20 June 2017 (UTC)): The reason I expanded the plot description for The Master of Disguise was because it was way too short. There's no reason to revert it back. 24.18.128.102 (talk) 17:33, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The section is called 'Plot'; the film clearly has very little plot. This is what the film reviews say. Your version is too long and overloaded with trivial and absurd detail which confuses the reader. There is every reason to revert your suggestion. All the best! Cpaaoi (talk) 07:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is clearly YOUR edits that are biased. The film may have a paper-thin plot, but that's no reason to have the plot description so short; there's plenty of aspects to include. Also, don't call my edits vandalism. Assume good faith. 24.18.128.102 (talk) 12:30, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I didn't write that long plot description; it's from a while ago. If you want to shorten it to a degree, that's fine, but don't make it that unreasonably short. 24.18.128.102 (talk) 12:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

moved from my talk page Cpaaoi (talk) 16:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC):[reply]

Expanding the plot description is NOT vandalism. So please stop assuming bad faith. 24.18.128.102 (talk) 12:26, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Terribly sorry if I caused any offense! Your edit does not have consensus, whereas my version has already had support. I would be more than willing to see the original version reinstated if good arguments are placed here which achieve consensus. There is no bias: what you propose is not a plot summary, but a full screenplay summary. On the contrary, I would suggest that if you wish to make edits, that's fine, but don't make it that unreasonably long. Any editor is within their rights to describe as vandalism persistent editing that has no consensus. All the best! Cpaaoi (talk) 16:23, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I'm more than willing to send this to the dispute resolution noticeboard for a third opinion. Again, I am more than willing to accept that I might be wrong if I see evidence for or agreement on this! Cpaaoi (talk) 17:54, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The longer version of the plot summary was 932 words, which very much goes over the WP:FILMPLOT maximum of 700 words. While there can be exceptions to this limit, this is not particularly a film that warrants it. This guideline is derived from WP:PLOT, which says that works of fiction can have "a concise summary" to go with a discussion of the work's reception and significance. The shorter version is on the rather short side. There can be up to 400 words for the plot summary. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:22, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The longer version is roughly 1,300 words. The shorter is somewhat under 150. WP:FILMPLOT suggests 400 to 700 words.

While I have seen some films with complicated plots come in well north of 700, with a solid consensus on the talk page to support it, this film is clearly not one of them. 1,300 is absurd. Sections like "Pistachio and Jennifer go to the fair, with Pistachio disguised as an elderly woman named Gammy Num-Nums. Pistachio (Gammy Num-Nums) remarks many things to Bowman, such as 'You're a tall glass of water, and I just love moisture!' and 'We're never going to make babies!'." point to the problem. In comedy films, there is a tendency for some writers to want to include every joke they enjoyed. That is not what the section is for. We are trying to present a brief summary of the main action.

That said, 150 seems rather short, even for what the IP admits is a "paper-thin" plot.

In the past, I cut down the plot section from Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle from an absurd 2,400 to about 500. Most of what I cut was references to individual jokes having little or nothing to do with the plot.[1] I'll take a crack at this one, starting with the long version and see what I come up with. I assume the necessary plot is in there, buried in the jokes. No promises, I was barely awake through my niece watching this several years ago... - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've made my first pass and have the plot down to about 350 words, a bit short of the general guideline. If there are essential elements of the plot that I've missed, feel free to add them in. The range in the guideline is meant to provide a general idea, not absolutes. That, combined with the "paper-thin" plot, IMO means we're good on length. Thoughts/comments/concerns? - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What's been done with the page now is very good. My version was probably cut a bit too spare, admittedly as a reaction to all the tangential detail - I think it's pretty evenly balanced now! Cpaaoi (talk) 08:44, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]