User talk:Coder Dan

Welcome!

Hello, Coder Dan, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! --Allan McInnes (talk) 04:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actors' names in plot

I have been removing them when there is a cast section that follows the plot. The cast section seems redundant if the names are already going to be mentioned in the plot section. Some articles don't include the cast section, and if that's the case, then I'll leave the actors' names in the plot section. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of different ways that our film articles are organized. Right now I'm doing cleanup on film articles including removing flag icons from the infobox, removing taglines, adding infobox parameters (as well as deleting expired ones), etc. I've seen editors do it both ways of including the actors' names or not, so it depends on the setup of the article. If you would like to organize a more definitive guideline then you can start a discussion at the project's guidelines page. Let me know if you would like further clarification. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plot summaries

Codrdan, a few points to consider.

First of all, please be civil to other editors and assume good faith. Your tone and comments on my talk page did neither.

Secondly, if you are going to link to advice, please do so correctly. I had to hunt myself for the advice you were trying to link to, I assume you meant to refer to this.

Thirdly, please note that the "How to write a plot summary" is only a guideline and not a policy as you stated on my talk page. It provides a general guide and need not be strictly adhered to. Alastairward (talk) 13:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Codrdan, we should have a bit of a summmary in both the lead and the summary section itself. There'd be no harm in taking the sentence I had trimmed and expanded and copying it into the summary section. I'd try expanding the plot section a bit too, else we'd be repeating some very brief summaries a bit too much. Alastairward (talk) 10:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MOSNUM edit changes the meaning

are germane to either Johnson or to architecture.

are germane either to Johnson or to architecture.

The second indicates that they are germane to either a or b, and nothing else besides. The first doesn't have that meaning.

Was the pre-existing phrase ungrammatical? Tony (talk) 07:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plot Length

I opened up a discussion on the Plot guideline talk page proposing a revisit to how it manages references to word count, etc. I would definitely appreciate your input on the questions I am raising. Thank you.

Diegoboten (talk) 20:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

playing well with others

Insults? Wow, I give you an F. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ring Cinema (talk • contribs) 16:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you're unaware that Collectonian's post explicitly mentioned the infobox in her first response to you. Did you see that or not? --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I usually use the rule of thumb of headliners in the infobox, those who actually get mentioned in the plot summary in the cast section (if there is one). Minor roles shouldn't be listed in either." That's what Collectonian said. Do you see how she talks about how there's a rule of thumb on the infobox that she applies to the cast section and that the two have a similar standard? Do you understand it differently? I assume your laughable rudeness (yes, we are sitting here laughing at you) indicates that you interpret that quotation differently. What do you think she meant? --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, see, I thought there might be a misunderstanding. I interpreted Collectonian's statement differently. My reading was that she was saying that "those who actually get mentioned" is appositive to "headliners," which implies the standard is the same. She seems to confirm that by saying that minor roles are treated the same, which I took as a further example and you took as an exception. Your reading is probably right. Not an excuse for rudeness. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

real genius

why did you rewrite it specifically to make it shorter?--Marhawkman (talk) 16:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once Upon a time...

Thanks for the adjust. appreciate the help. EncinoChic (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that wasn't a typo. Meant to say "launching" not "lynching". The latter gives away too much plot as in spoiler. what do you think? EncinoChic (talk) 14:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great suggestions! Thank you. EncinoChic (talk) 17:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plot Summaries

Hi, I understand perfectly. I was just trying to help with the flow of the text as it were. For example, it is makes sense to mention Baby Hermann's occupation in the paragraph where he actually meets Eddie rather than in the opening one; and I think that the terms of Marvin's will is more relevant than Eddie's kissing of Roger. I notice that you have restored some of my points to the summary so what I'm doing cannot be all bad. And just for the record, I have edited plenty of movie summaries, not just this one.--Marktreut (talk) 18:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

genres

I really don't think it's necessary for genres to be in the first sentence of a film article. Title, obviously. Year, fine. Genres, not so much. There might be a perfectly good reason to do it differently. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page guidelines

Regarding this: Firstly, I didn't reformat anyone's text, I merely added line breaks and corrected indentations to improve readability, both of which are explicitly permitted by the talk page guidelines. Right now the discussion is becoming difficult to read because people are indenting (or not indenting) their comments out of sequence to those above, and not putting extra line breaks between comments which makes the text difficult to navigate in the edit window. Secondly, new text should always go under old text, so rather than sticking a comment in between previous ones that have already been replied to (as you've done here), you should add your comment at the bottom and, if necessary, name or quote the person to whom you are addressing your reply. When you stick replies in amongst already existing comments, the discussion loses all chronological sequence and becomes further muddled. Finally, please don't "yell" by using all caps in your edit summary. It's unnecessary and not very civil. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

> I merely added line breaks and corrected indentations to improve readability

WP:TPO allows "Fixing format errors", but many of the things you changed weren't errors.

> people are indenting (or not indenting) their comments out of sequence to those above

In some cases you're right, but your formatting was worse overall than the original. You mindlessly indented comments that were starting new subtopics.

> new text should always go under old text

That only applies within individual conversations. You should put new posts at the end of the discussion you're responding to, not at the very bottom of the entire section.

> When you stick replies in amongst already existing comments, the discussion loses all chronological sequence and becomes further muddled.

And when you mix conversations together by listing comments in strict chronological order, you muddle things even worse.

—Codrdan (talk) 09:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not properly indenting, and sticking replies in between previous ones, are mistakes in formatting that make conversations difficult to read. If one wishes to start a new subtopic, one should begin a third-level header. New text should go under old text, regardless of whether it's within an individual conversation or not; if not, the text of the conversation becomes nigh-impossible to follow because all of the comments are out of chronological order. If you wish to address a point made several posts previous, all you need to do is either quote the person or name them in your post, similar to what you have done above to address my individual points. --IllaZilla (talk) 11:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I don't want to be any more negative than necessary, but indenting every message in a section defeats the purpose of having indentation in the first place. It destroys the information indicated by the indentation. If you're going to indent every message, you might as well not indent any of them, because mindless indentation conveys no information about which message is being responded to. Here are some examples of correct indentation:

Millahnna's "Speaking purely as a reader" message directly addresses the main topic of the section, so it shouldn't be indented.
The same thing applies to my "Erik and Collectonian" post.
Ring Cinema's "I doesn't go against the guidelines" post and my "It appears to be the consensus" post are both responses to Collectonian's "It is not just our view" post, so they should both be indented one level more than Collectonian's post. It would be stupid to indent my message more than Ring Cinema's simply because I posted my message after he posted his, because that would make it look like I was responding to him instead of Collectonian.
The same thing applies to Ring Cinema's "Not true" message and my "Maybe you're right" message in response to Erik's "Definition lists" post.
My "Maybe you're right" message is correctly inserted before your earlier "I find it inappropriate" message, because it's a response to Erik's earlier post. Adding it to the end of the section would be confusing.

I hope I've made my point clear, IllaZilla: Indenting every message more than the previous one regardless of content is obviously pointless. Please don't do it.

—Codrdan (talk) 12:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bold formatting

I tried to start discussion at WT:MOSBOLD here, but it did not attract any responses. IllaZilla's followup has not garnered anything, either. You will have to excuse my approach at WT:MOSFILM; the parties were already entrenched over something that could not be compromised. These particular situations are frustrating because there is no creative way to go about resolving it. There is no consensus among editors at the discussion on usage of bold formatting, so it is best that the guidelines for WikiProject Films do not cover the matter at this time. If you want to push for discussion at WT:MOSBOLD about clarifying the formatting issue, let me know when you do. A final note: I am not operating in any capacity as a coordinator and would not do that in such a discussion anyway. (I stepped down last November due to, well, life.) About bold formatting in cast sections, though, I've been trying to figure out a way to sidestep the formatting. The formatting usually pops up when we mix lists and prose, where bulleted items are very long indeed. I'm considering trying to separate the two for better readability. Such an example is at Apt Pupil (film)#Cast, where we can see the credits, then go into prose about specific actors and roles. Erik (talk) 03:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copy editing

Hi, thanks for your note. I tweaked your tweaks. See what you think. Maurreen (talk) 17:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You were very kind and helped me to understand the use of the selected parameter in the base navbox template despite my not getting it for ages! For me the work you did works perfectly, but another editor is seeing the template in its uncollapsed state by default. I, and I am sure you, see the template as collapsed by default.

Please would you pop over to the template talk page and have a chat to Penbat about it, ideally there? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Stupid Rule

Stagyar Zil Doggo here. You recently reverted an edit I made to the article on the movie, "The Time Machine." "Pls don't place punctuation in quoted phrases. It's a stupid rule, & it's not followed outside the US. ..." says you. Agreed, says I.

Actually, I agree with you completely. It is stupid, and it is a rule. Objectionable though it be, we've still got to do it. By "we," I mean either every English speaker - that's if you're wrong about the rule being unique to American English; or myself and my American compatriots if you're right - whichever is closer to the truth (← intentional facetiousness). But if you and your sources have got it right, and I've got no reason to doubt that you have, then it comes down to a decision between American, and British English, and Wikipedia has a policy (see section 15, subsection 11) that decides that sort of thing. The upshot of the rule, as it applies to this article, is that the national variety of English used to describe the subject matter should match that spoken in its country of origin, if it's not possible to describe it in words that would be equally appropriate in any of the places in question. In this case, the country of origin is the United States, and that means that we're playing by US rules.

Or else everybody is. Stagyar Zil Doggo (talk) 23:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

> we're playing by US rules

Fine, go ahead and play with punctuation rules all you want. Please don't add verbiage and detail to plot summaries though. The summary for The Time Machine is plenty long enough and complete enough already. All of your edits made it worse. —Codrdan (talk) 00:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please believe me when I say that I meant - and mean - no offense. The phrase you quoted is one that I used as a figure of speech, and nothing more. I certainly did not mean to imply that we are involved in some sort of game, or that I do not take your input seriously. Your opinions are just as meaningful as my own, and I was perfectly serious in my assertion that the Wikipedia guidelines codified in the Manual of Style clearly preclude debate vis a vis the matter of an American English article on The Time Machine, an assertion I still stand by. Bear in mind, though, that I am more than amenable to the use of neutral language - in fact I believe that would be the best of all possible solutions, as far as it goes.

However, you've made it clear that the relationship between quotation marks and other punctuation is not your primary concern, and, to be blunt, I'm flummoxed. You're latest statement seems to indicate - in fact, states as much in no uncertain terms - that you are opposed to the idea of adding content to plot summaries, or at least this summary in particular. Let me make it clear - I strongly suspect that this cannot be what you mean. It is, however, what you said. I am well aware of the need to restrain oneself when describing a creative work, especially when one is a fan thereof, yet I would be grateful for clarification of your point.

Inasmuch as what I've already written does not address the entirety of your message, I detect a note of animosity. The second and fourth senetences of your message particularly smack of distaste for my writing style, as opposed to dissatisfaction with my copy-editing. Would you say that assessment is accurate? Stagyar Zil Doggo (talk) 04:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

> ["we're playing by US rules"] is ... a figure of speech

> Wikipedia guidelines ... preclude debate

You don't have to adhere to guidelines slavishly.

> You're latest statement

"Your latest statement" ;^)

> you are opposed to the idea of adding content to plot summaries

Summaries are supposed to be short. See WP:FILMPLOT and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. As soon as a plot summary is 5–6 words per minute of runtime (my guide, not official), with allowances for pace and complexity, you should be very careful about adding more detail.

> at least this summary in particular.

The summary for this film is done. Unless you can find any errors or a way to make it more concise, it doesn't need any more work. If you want to help with plot summaries, it would be better to find ones that are way too short or way too long. It's not hard, there are millions of them.

Vox 114 can't inform Alexander that time travel isn't possible, because in the movie it is.
It doesn't matter what caused the lunar detonations or how they destroyed Earth.
"shortly thereafter": It doesn't matter how long it took for Emma to be killed.
Traveling to 2030: Obviously Alexander has to find someone knowledgeable to learn about time travel, and obviously he would want them to tell him about it. His suspicions are implied by "find out whether her life can be saved", and the mechanics of finding experts and asking them to answer questions is too trivial to waste the reader's time on.
"free time": As I said before, Alexander's research is his career, not just a hobby.
You deleted Conformity and "identical bowler hats": The author makes a point to emphasize the issue of academic independence, and many other editors have insisted on mentioning the bowler hats. Look in the edit history, it's not just me.
2037: It doesn't matter where the debris comes from; obviously he has to go forward to get to 802,701; obviously "wakes up" means "regains consciousness" in that context; and it says in the next paragraph that he stops there.

> I would be grateful for clarification

The recommended length for film plot summaries is 400–700 words. The guideline doesn't say anything about comparing lengths within that range, but I operate on the assumption that 500–600 words is best for an average film and the ends of the range are for films that are longer and/or more complex, or shorter and/or less complex, than average.

> I detect a note of animosity.

I haven't seen you do anything useful yet. Fix that and I'll be happy :^)

> distaste for my writing style[?]

Yes, I think you emphasize too much detail and use too many words. As the old saying goes, "Never say in twenty words what you can say in ~~ten~~ eleven." :^) —Codrdan (talk) 06:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't like my writing style - someone was bound to say so sooner or later. If I said I didn't like your writing style, what would you recommend that we do about it? Would you like to discuss the changes? Stagyar Zil Doggo (talk) 07:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

> If I said I didn't like your writing style, what would you recommend that we do about it?

Tell me what you don't like about it. If that doesn't work, my main solution is to only make heavy edits to summaries that are outside the limits of the guideline. For instance, No Country for Old Men (film) has a lot of style issues (dramatic gimmicks), but it's not too awful, so I leave it to other people.

> Would you like to discuss the changes?

Are you talking about further discussion, or were you too lazy to notice the half-dozen bulleted comments I just made? —Codrdan (talk) 13:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to discuss the changes? Would it - the discourse - mean something to you? We've been having a discussion, but I wanted to point out the difference between talking and communicating. The one is a success, the other is a passtime at best, and your reliable verbal abuse makes me wonder which one we are engaged in.

I mean you could be a hundred times the editor I am. It's possible. But not if you think you are.

I don't like the idea of submitting all my work to you for approval (you're a good editor, don't get me wrong), but I would like to collaborate, especially since this article is clearly important to you. It's true, as you say, that the difference between a rule and a guideline is that the one is binding, while the other isn't. I understand that it may not be easy to do so succinctly, but give me an idea, if you can, of how you distinguish between those guidelines that are worthwhile, like the one that sets the maximum appropriate length you perceive for movie summaries, and those that aren't, such as the as the one that recommends the use of American English for American subject matter, etc.

You knew that there was community consensus about the bowler hats off the top of your head? That's an excellent example of the high value of your input. I mean it.

Thank you for drawing my attention to WP:FILMPLOT. It does indeed stipulate a maximum length of seven-hundred words. I hadn't known that. But then - it's a guideline, and one can't always adhere to guidelines slavishly. It also stipulates that it's okay to make an exception if a particular movie warrants it. It even mentions Pulp Fiction as an example of a movie with a non-linear plot, and I can't think of anything that complicates a plot better than time travel. "I am well aware of the need to restrain oneself when describing a creative work, especially when one is a fan thereof," and I am. A fan of the work that is. I want a bloated, super-detailed summary not at all. Actually, this is evidenced by the revision history of the article on The Time Machine, which shows that I've made edits in two streaks not punctuated by edits by other editors. Each time, the edits were made in rapid succession. The first streak of edits ultimately reduced the size of the article. The second increased the size, principally because of my two most recent edits, but by less than four-hundred bytes. I understand that there's the cumulative impact of the work of many fans to consider, but I honestly think those last two brought something to the table, especially the most recent one - the reason why the Moon explodes is something that ought to be explained, and that event didn't destroy Earth. I mean it's still there 635,000,000 years later. It's civilization that was destroyed. Stagyar Zil Doggo (talk) 04:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

> maximum length of seven-hundred words.

Check out Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines/Archive 6#Running-time guideline. That's the rule I use to figure length targets for plot summaries.

> those last two [edits]

I don't see anything important in the 2030 edit, although you have a point about 2037. How about something like this:

Alexander continues into the future until 2037, when

~~accidental detonations on the Moon are~~

the accidental destruction of the Moon is rendering Earth virtually uninhabitable.

—Codrdan (talk) (edited 00:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

That's good CD - like it a lot. Stagyar Zil Doggo (talk) 02:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamgirls (film)

I did my best to shorten the plot summary to 631 words, just under WP:FILM's upper word count requirement. From reading it, do you think it could be any shorter? --FuriousFreddy (talk) 18:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issues dealing with wordiness I can address, but a few of the details need to be left in for the summary to make sense. I can't tell if you've seen the film or not based on the suggestions, but a few things - Jimmy bombing infront of the upscale (read: mostly white, which actually makes more sense) audience, and Effie being too large and her voice too "special" (the term used in the film. They mean "soulful" or "black", but in the summary neither term seemed to work) to attract white audiences are important details the theme of the film hinges upon.

Without those, the plot summary starts not to make much sense, since the theme of the film is about a black record executive trying to package black singers for white consumption, and the problems it creates primarily with the Effie, Jimmy, and Deena characters. The plot has a simple core, but since it takes place over 15 years of story time, there a lot of things to compress into the plot summary.

Answering some of the questions:

Curtis makes the women lose the contest so that he can sign them, but I can put that over without that piece of information.

Curtis doesn't dump Jimmy in Act 1 so much as "put him back out on the road" while he focuses on the Dreams. Save for a brief scene of him seeing the Dreams on TV, Jimmy has no further screen time until Act 2. Trying to explain in any more detail than "Curtis shifts his attention back to the Dreams" would be speculation, because the film never goes into what happens to Jimmy. By intonations and pointed dialogue in Act 2, you're to presume he kept turning out music and touring without success.

I thought the "shifts his attention back to" bit was explained enough in that he takes the group, changes the name, appoints Deena lead, and gives them a new image and sound. Should I reword this to clarify?

If I take Michelle's name out, someone else is going to add it back in. I don't think it hurts much to keep that brief mention.

"Despite her pleas." Heh. I can take this one out, but it's supposed to be a reference to the film's best-known scene, where the Effie character sings "And I Am Telling You I'm Not Going" to Curtis. I'll probably need to explain what the song is about someplace in the Reception section.

One last question: it's been that way ever since I wrote the original draft, but is the "Act 1/Act 2" thing likely to be challenged. I know it's unconventional, but the film does the same thing the stage show does where the story is artificially split in two (and stylistically, each half is a separate film. That might be something good to put into production if I can

I did take the summary down a few words more, mostly by following the suggestions you offered. Thank you very much for your help! --FuriousFreddy (talk) 01:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Details

Could you be bit clearer on what might be too detailed in The Devil Wears Prada's plot summary? Granted it's been padded a bit lately by anons, but I worked very hard when originally writing the article to get it below a thousand words (currently it's at 878). Anything that jumps to mind? It seems this is one of your major concerns in articles. Daniel Case (talk) 21:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just implemented most of your recommendations. Thanks a lot ... a lot of what you caught is indeed plotcruft that's been added by anons over the years, and really not necessary. Perhaps this will trigger another complaint, like the one on the talk page, about the plot summary not being long enough :-).

But for me, since I do hope to take this to FAC one day (as soon as I can finish trimming the production section (difficult at first, since the DVD commentary has so much from so many people in the film explaining their creative decisions, which is as you know gold when you're writing film articles, and of course you know everything one writes is just too precious, too dearly obtained, to cut :-)) and run down the interview with Florian Ballhaus in the ASC journal to see if he has anything noteworthy to say.

Focusing on the plot summary for the first time in a while has made me feel more confident that maybe I can finish the job, find that interview, and maybe get it to FAC in time for the film's fourth anniversary. Or fifth anniversary, which would actually be better. Daniel Case (talk) 18:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

organization

I thought you agreed that this article needs to be reordered for organization. You changed your mind? --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. Thanks. Ring Cinema (talk) 22:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Big Country

The reason I use those words is because they are actually used in the actual movie by Peck to make his point about violence. For example, when Gregory Peck is giving the dueling pistols to Charles Bickford, he recalls that his father was killed in a duel, no one could remember what it was about. As it appears in the actual dialogue, it is not subjective, but part of the plot Purple backpack89 22:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dial M for Murder

Hi Codrdan, I apologize: I made a few changes today to the plot summary on this before I had noticed the work you did on it (it's about 100 degrees here in NYC and my brain has gone on strike). Feel free to eliminate any additions I made that seem like excess verbiage. I did change the description that Margot introduced Mark as an "old school chum" because she does not say that. It is Tony who says that when Tony is telling Swann the story. Margot introduces him to Tony as someone I met a year ago, without elaboration. Anyway, best wishes from one Hitchcock fan to another, Invertzoo (talk) 22:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no problem. Prior to your message I did not know the suggested word limit and I also did not know how long this particular summary was before I added to it. I only contribute to film articles every once in a while, but thanks to you I now know a lot more about how to do it properly.

Just so as you know, when I wrote "he had told her", that use of past-perfect was intended to underline the fact that he had already told her not to call the police when he was on the phone to her, prior to his coming home. Several of the additions were intended to point out to the reader how Tony's lying is gradually revealed to the audience, layer upon layer of deceit in a very chilling way, as we gradually see through the thoroughly nice person he appears to be at first, into the stone-cold psychopath he really is. As you know, this is a device that occurs in several other of Hitchcock movies.

Wherever you are now, I hope it is cooler than it is here; like I said, my brain is not at its best when it is so thoroughly roasted! Best, Invertzoo (talk) 01:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For majorly reworking Kim Possible: A Sitch in Time to make it shorter and therefore easier to read. I dream of horses @ 20:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! Thanks Emily, that's my first barnstar :) —Codrdan (talk) 21:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! --I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 21:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Galaxy Quest Plot / Mathesar's Renewed Belief

Codrdan, you recently reverted an edit I made to the page on Galaxy Quest regarding the idea that Mathesar believes that the truth of Galaxy Quest was actually a lie to deceive Sarris. There are a number of points to support this proposition. The first is that Mathesar specifically cited "the ship was a model, as big as this---how very clever a deception indeed!" This is not the sort of untruth one would expect Mathesar to cite if he was referring to "crew" actually being actors. It is, however, the exact untruth one would expect if Mathesar believed that Jason had lied to deceive Sarris. The second point is that no Thermian expresses any sentiment that the crew are frauds---they clearly believe and are perfectly comfortable with letting the actors handle the ship. If they believed that the actors were indeed actors, this would not likely be the case; they would retake control themselves. The third point is that Mathesar specifically says "We were hoping you could come with us. M-m-my people have no commander." Would Mathesar desire someone he believed to be an actor to lead his entire nation? Would he imply that Jason Nesmith was qualified to be a commander, as his fictional alter ego was? Not too likely at all---he clearly believes that Jason IS Peter Taggart, commander of the protector.

But the final point, and the most important of all, is that in the end, Mathesar's continued belief makes it real. One of the main themes of the movie is the power of the fans to keep the show alive; in face of cancellation, the fans of Galaxy Quest kept the dream alive. Hence Brandon's "Oh my God, I knew it, I knew it!" upon being told that it was all real. In the case of the Thermians, the fans were so dedicated that they literally DID create the National Space Exploration Administration and the Protector herself, as well as modeling their entire society after them. In the end, the belief of the fans made fiction into complete reality, just as in the end, the actors genuinely have become their fictional counterparts, if only for a short time.

I feel my edit was well supported by the movie in every detail. It seems manifestly clear that Mathesar does believe. Afterall, he likely recalled similar tactics used by Commander Taggart in the TV series---Captain Kirk from Star Trek, for example, was famous for cunning deceptions when he was in a situation where he was completely outmatched. In light of the evidence, there is no other conclusion: Mathesar and the Thermians believe---Sarris was simply deceived.

I have reverted the Galaxy Quest page back to the edit I made in light of the above. If this is not standard Wikipedia policy, please accept my apologies.

24.159.87.174 (talk) 12:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

> "the ship was a model" is not the sort of untruth one would expect Mathesar to cite if he was referring to "crew" actually being actors.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Mathesar is obviously laughing at what chumps he and his people have been for not realizing the show is fiction, and the model ship is a symbol of that.

> Would Mathesar imply that Jason Nesmith was qualified to be a commander, as his fictional alter ego was?

Yes. By the end of the film, Mathesar could trust and respect Jason even if he knows he's an actor.

> Brandon's "Oh my God, I knew it, I knew it!" ... Jason likely recalled similar tactics

The thoughts of another character and your personal speculations are not evidence of Mathesar's thoughts. He was obviously laughing about the model ship, so there's no explicit support for your theory at all, and his thoughts didn't affect the action anyway, so they're not really important. If you enjoy fantasizing about the film, maybe you should find some kind of fan website.

—Codrdan (talk) 14:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I wrote a full explanation of my change, and you basically blew it off, admitting that you have no idea about what I was talking about. You also completely neglected to address my argument in anything but the most superficial way. Particularly telling is that you have chosen to completely ignore the fact that only a fool would ask an actor to lead a nation---Mathesar clearly believes that he is the commander, not an actor---Mathesar distinctly says "my people have no commander." Do you honestly think Mathesar believes an actor a competent commander of an entire nation? And you have also decided to ignore major themes of the film. On top of that, you have accused me of fantasizing when I gave you a reasoned argument---you could have simply said you disagreed politely, or better yet, demonstrated your point in argument.

Instead, you chose to be a dick and act like I made everything I wrote up when I can prove it is all in the movie. This is endemic of many self-important Wikipedia editors, as many people have found, and is a major reason so many people refuse to help with this site. You have clearly decided what you want to believe, regardless of fact, and enforced your view---may I also mention that there is absolutely no explicit evidence whatsoever for the Thermians thinking themselves chumps; in fact, it is specifically mentioned that they believe that a person who lies is evil like Sarris. Odd how nicely they treat the actors in light of that, isn't it?

I tried to be polite and make one of the Internet's finest resources a better place, using information directly from the film (not fantasty, as you pretended) and you simply took it as an opportunity to insult and relish in your power as an editor. I have reverted the page once more in hopes that you will actually take the time to read my post and think about it before you simply react in a knee-jerk fashion. If you want to do your job correctly, you can at least dignify each point I made with a proper argument. If I am wrong, you should have no trouble with doing so. Or you can just revert it and demonstrate your true colors to me---either one's fine really.

> admitting that you have no idea about what I was talking about.
Are you a Thermian? I know exactly what you're saying, I was just trying to be polite.

> only a fool would ask an actor to lead a nation
In your opinion. See Ronald Reagan.

> Mathesar clearly believes that he is the commander, not an actor
In your opinion.

> Do you honestly think Mathesar believes an actor a competent commander of an entire nation?
Yes, I do.

> I gave you a reasoned argument
You gave me original research.

> you could have simply said you disagreed politely, or better yet, demonstrated your point in argument.
I did. There's no explicit evidence for any of Mathesar's thoughts or feelings except that he finally figured out that the spaceship on the TV show was a model and he trusts and respects Jason.

> Instead, you chose to be a dick and act like I made everything I wrote up when I can prove it is all in the movie.
You did make everything you wrote up. There's nothing in the film about Mathesar's thoughts except him laughing at the spaceship model. Everything else is conjecture, and none of it is important enough to be in the plot summary.

> This is endemic of many self-important Wikipedia editors
Dude, you need to get a life.

> You have clearly decided what you want to believe, regardless of fact
In your opinion.

> there is absolutely no explicit evidence whatsoever for the Thermians thinking themselves chumps
Except that Mathesar was laughing hysterically when he mentioned the spaceship model.

> they believe that a person who lies is evil like Sarris.
Until the end of the film. Mathesar finally figures out the joke. It's called "character development".

> using information directly from the film
The only thing that happens in the film is that Mathesar laughs about the model spaceship. Everything else is in your imagination.

> you simply took it as an opportunity to insult and relish in your power as an editor.
I relish the privelege of contributing to Wikipedia. Keeping plot summaries short and concise is a high priority here, and your speculations about a character's unexpressed thoughts aren't supported by any onscreen action or important enough to include in the summary.

—Codrdan (talk) 03:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to actually address my argument this time around. However, I would like to leave you with one parting comment. You will note that many articles on films here on Wikipedia spend a good deal of time and plot on things that aren't spelled out as explicitly as you apparently require them to be---check the pages on Star Wars for example, or Lord of the Rings. And as a final side note, while I respect your opinion, I would have had no choice but to fail you out of any class I taught on film interpretation, were Galaxy Quest a film I had chosen to test on---you have deliberately chosen to ignore major themes of the film, as well as direct character statements.

So yes, I do know what I was talking about. But I'm not an editor of Wikipedia, nor will I ever be with the attitude the site displays. Editors such as yourself are among the main reasons the academic community considers Wiki to be a laughable joke of a resource, considering the power one peer holds over every article. Such an insular attitude is frankly disgusting.

Thank you for your time, P. Hobbes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.159.87.174 (talk) 18:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see what you're saying. I guess it could be interpreted either way. The nervous or uncertain look on Guy's face and Tawny's face suggests that Mathesar may still not get it, but Alex's makeup is visibly messed up by that point, so you have to assume M doesn't notice it even though it's obvious. I'm going to stick to my guns about M wanting Jason to lead his people. Jason proved his courage, resourcefulness, loyalty, and ability to perform under pressure, so I don't think it's unreasonable for M to want Jason to lead the Thermians even if he knows he's an actor. As for our discussion, here are some more points:

The model ship is a perfectly reasonable example for M to use if he finally realizes the fictional nature of the TV show.
It's common for fictional characters to learn some kind of lesson by the end of the story. I'm sure you know what character development is.
There's no explicit indication of what M means by "What a clever deception!", and I think it's a reasonable way for a Thermian to describe a fictional story.
The idea of fans and Thermians making the TV show "real" is either metaphor or mysticism, depending on how literally you take it. Metaphor has no place in encyclopedic prose, and I don't see any evidence of literal mysticism in the film.
As for the film supporting your interpretation "in every detail", all I can say is that the only thing worse than self-important Wikipedia editors is self-important film-interpretation teachers. There's almost no explicit evidence for either interpretation, and the detail of Alex's makeup being ruined in M's presence weighs against M's continuing belief. Maybe we should blame the film's writers for being ambiguous. Or maybe the ambiguity is intentional :)
About your edit: Whatever Mathesar's final state of mind, it has no effect on the action, so it's not important enough to include in the plot summary. You mentioned that the Star Wars summaries are longer, but the film style guideline specifically recommends keeping summaries shorter than 700 words. I don't adhere to that limit exactly, but I would still say most of the Star Wars summaries are longer than they should be.
And finally, about my response: Every day, half a dozen tweenage movie fans add a bunch of trivial details to their favorite film articles, so I and other editors spend a lot of our time deleting unhelpful edits that would otherwise balloon plot summaries into bloated novellas. Please excuse my not seeing your point right away, but the text you added really wasn't helpful. If you want to contribute to plot summaries on Wikipedia, please keep them down to five or six words per minute of running time, with up to ten percent more for complexity (murder mysteries), ten percent for novelty (fantasy and sci-fi), and ten percent for fast pace (many animations); and only add characters' thoughts or feelings if they have a significant impact on the story's action.

—Codrdan (talk) 12:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for throwing away an hour's work

Regarding Monsters, Inc, thanks for throwing away an hour's work, Coder Dan. Who's to decide what's "unimportant detail"? Many of my changes were to tighten the existing text by saying the same things with fewer words. Could you have not thrown out the baby with the bathwater? Karn (talk) 13:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

> Thanks for throwing away an hour's work

You're welcome, it needed throwing away. I usually take half a day or more to rewrite a plot summary, and I only do extensive rewrites when the original has serious problems like excessive length or awful writing.

> Who's to decide what's "unimportant detail"?

Everyone is. My rule of thumb is that, if it doesn't affect the action, it's probably unimportant.

> Many of my changes were to tighten the existing text

That's a joke. You only reduced the word length in a couple places, the total reduction was a couple dozen words, and some of your new text was ambiguous or confusing.

> Could you have not thrown out the baby with the bathwater?

No, there was too much bathwater to find the baby. You added 145 words to the summary, bringing it from 679 words, which is already close to the 700-word upper limit in the guideline, to 824 words, which is way beyond it. You also made a lot of gratuitous changes to the wording, so the total number of words you changed is much more. Please don't waste other editors' time by forcing us to wade through unimportant trivia.

—Coder Dan (talk) 18:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying my writing deserved a Pulitzer, or that no one should have touched it. I actually do believe in the Wikipedia principle of collaborative writing.

As the synopsis now stands (again), there's no mention of the fact that the monsters are terrified of human contact. I'd say that's a pretty critical element that drives the entire plot of this movie.

Apparently, you don't agree or you would have taken a few minutes to retain at least this particular point. Instead you just reverted to the previous version, which I took as saying that my work was worse than completely worthless. And I see that's exactly what you intended to say.

Screw it. It's just not worth dealing with petty tyrants. You obviously spend more time editing Wikipedia than I do, and that makes you a much better human being than me. If you want to chase away Wikipedia contributors, or at least those who don't measure up to your impeccable standards, keep it up; you're certainly on the right track. No wonder there are so many edit wars on Wikipedia. Karn (talk) 10:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

> I'm not saying my writing deserved a Pulitzer

That's good, because I don't think you'll be getting one soon. You haven't learned to distinguish between key plot points and extraneous detail, you use slang, contractions, and presumptuous language, and your text has some minor problems with organization.

> I actually do believe in the Wikipedia principle of collaborative writing.

I'm ambivalent about it. Once in a while, someone finds a mistake or clunky spot in something I've worked on, but most edits are just extraneous trivia from tweenage film buffs.

> there's no mention of the fact that the monsters are terrified of human contact.

Fixed.

> saying that my work was worse than completely worthless.

Yep. The summary was already in compliance with the guideline, and most of what you added was extraneous detail and gratuitous rewording.

> It's just not worth dealing with petty tyrants.

Dude, you need to learn how to write better, follow Wikipedia guidelines, and restrain yourself from rewriting other people's work.

> You obviously spend more time editing Wikipedia than I do

More time and more effort. I try very hard to produce high-quality material, and I don't step on other people's work unless it obviously sucks.

> that makes you a much better human being than me

Sure, go ahead and whine, Karn. It's much easier than having an intelligent discussion.

> you want to chase away Wikipedia contributors ... who don't measure up to your impeccable standards

I hold myself to high standards, and I do think Wikipedia has a quality problem, but the main standard I hold other people to is to follow the guidelines and respect other people's work. I would rather contribute to new material than fend off inexperienced teeny-boppers, but I don't like my work being overwritten, especially by something that's obviously worse.

> No wonder there are so many edit wars

Dude, you started it. If you want to contribute to plot summaries, please find some that are out of compliance. There are millions of them.

—Coder Dan (talk) 16:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

>restrain yourself from rewriting other people's work.

Ah, the edit history is making the situation clearer.

Forgive me if I got it all wrong, but I thought "rewriting other people's work" is the whole idea of Wikipedia! It even says so at the bottom of this page: "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used...then do not submit it here". I presume that also appeared on your screen every time you made a contribution.

Although I've seen far worse elsewhere on Wikipedia, I rewrote sections of this article because I saw several important omissions and errors, some bad grammar and (especially) a lot of clumsy phrasing, much of which I tightened in ways that you apparently consider "gratuitous". And yes, I used some of the recovered room to add extra detail that you consider excessive, and ended up expanding the section by about 5%. My apologies; I guess Wikipedia disk space must be pretty tight.

Personally, I consider reverting an edit a rather extreme step that I reserve for outright vandalism -- something not easy to confuse with even a bad contribution made in good faith. I prefer to work on it and try to keep whatever good parts are there because I know I'd want someone to do the same to whatever I contribute.

Obviously your philosophy is different -- especially when someone edits something you wrote. Karn (talk) 07:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

> I thought "rewriting other people's work" is the whole idea of Wikipedia!

Rewriting isn't the same thing as editing. I welcome any and all changes that make the text better, but you shouldn't gratuitously overwrite existing text with something worse.

> I consider reverting an edit a rather extreme step

Reverting an edit is no more extreme than making the edit in the first place. I consider editing itself a step that I reserve for text with definite problems. If it were simply a matter of personal taste, I would rewrite almost every plot summary on Wikipedia. As I said earlier, if you really want to contribute to plot summaries, you should work on ones that are incomplete or excessively long. As for the rest of your post, please stop wasting my time with sarcasm and rhetoric and let me know what you don't like about the existing text. I'll be happy to discuss it with you.

—Coder Dan (talk) 10:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(added "reverting" text 13:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC))

A History of Horror

Hello. Where is the policy on removal of non-parent categories? Rubywine (talk) 20:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time. :) Rubywine (talk) 16:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DIFFUSE

Hi, I see that you chose to undo my edit to the categorization page here. If you can, please state at Wikipedia_talk:Categorization#WP:DIFFUSE whether you're fundamentally opposed to this shortcut, or whether it was my addition of it without prior discussion, or anything else you may have to say on this topic. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NavboxEvenBG

Do you still want {{NavboxEvenBG}}? It's unused at the moment. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. Someone might find it useful in the future, but I don't need it right now. —Coder Dan (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

		The Modest Barnstar
		Thanks for your recent contributions! 129.49.72.78 (talk) 16:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to cool it....

with the personal attacks.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Get a grip, dude. I didn't attack anyone. —Coder Dan (talk) 00:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really that unable to grasp why your approach looks like an attack? Seriously? You're a pedant with a chip on his shoulder who cannot understand that hostile language does not equal "constructive criticism". Did I use the wrong word? Yes. Were you able to parse my meaning? Yes. So what the fuck is the problem?Theplanetsaturn (talk) 04:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that people like you are turning Wikipedia into just another Web 2.0 idiocracy. The reason my comment looks like an attack is that you're vain and egotistical, which is probably why you use big words in the first place. If a friend of mine made the same mistake, I would say the same thing, and if someone said it to me, I would thank them. —Coder Dan (talk) 05:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"People like you"? You have all of ONE accidental misuse of a word in a casual discussion. Not even in the article itself, but within the discussion page. And you instantly think you know what kind of person I am? I get that you have a deep seated superiority complex. But the more you write, the more you show how undeserved your high self opinion is.

The reason I think your "comment" looks like an attack is because it was an attack. One you are desperatly trying to deny having launched in the first place. At least man up to your own petty behavior. It's not like I was even the only person to take note of it.

You say you would say the same thing to a friend who made the same mistake? Here's another hint for you: We're not friends. Only a fool thinks they can excuse poor behavior because those closest to them would find it acceptable. For the record, the poor behavior I refer to is your approach. Not specifically the correction itself. If you had just posted on my page a point to the mistake, I WOULD have thanked you, and explained that I always find a way to swap those two words. But no, you chose the road that makes you look like a pedantic asshole. Congratulations.

Tell me this: Were you confused by my intent? Do you think anyone else was? Was my statement made within the actual article, thus necessitating any alteration? Answers: No. No. No. Your childish insistence on correcting others unnecessarily is noted.

For the record: These words we're are arguing about? They're not big words. It's kind of sad that you think they are.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 08:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[See next section.] 15:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Was you condescending attitude...

...really necessary? Was your mother murdered by someone who made a common mistake during informal casual discussion on a Wikipedia page?

The slight misuse of one word may not reflect perfectly on me. But your need to call it out? What does that make you look like?Theplanetsaturn (talk) 00:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not being condescending. If you're too pretentious to accept constructive criticism, then my attitude is appropriate. Your mistake is not common, because most people have enough sense to learn what words mean before using them, and it's not minor, because "subsequently" and "consequently" mean totally different things. I don't care what correcting illiterate morons makes me look like, because I don't think illiterate morons should be allowed to edit Wikipedia. —Coder Dan (talk) 01:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think that presuming a simple and common word swap as a failure to understand is condescending? Or suggesting that said error makes a person look "stupid"? You think insults are "constructive"? Then guess what? You don't understand what "condescending" or "constructive" mean. I get it. You're a petty and controlling asshole with a pointless chip on his shoulder. You're trolling, and should be treated with the appropriate level of contempt. In short: Fuck off.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 04:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's condescending to call a mistake "simple and common" immediately after the other person explains that it's neither simple nor common. The words are so different in meaning that the only way to confuse them is a failure to understand, and misusing them definitely makes you look stupid. Have a nice day. —Coder Dan (talk) 06:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which simply underscores the fact that the you don't really understand what "condescending" means. Here's another very subtle hint for you: Unnecessary pedantic corrections compounded with an assumption and accusation of a failure to comprehend is a start. Add in the suggestion that the intelligence of the person who made the mistake is limited... That's you being a condescending ass. If you don't think you were being condescending, then you simply do not understand the word. Which, by the way, makes you look "stupid". Particularly since you chose to throw stones while living in that glass house of yours.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 08:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

> Here's another hint for you: We're not friends.

I think I'll just leave it there. Have a nice day. —Coder Dan (talk) 15:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Fixed misuse of pseudointellectual vocabulary" - So what is it? You can't correct someone without a snide and condescending comment?Theplanetsaturn (talk) 07:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you stop whining and learn how to write. "Garner" and "subsequently" are two of the most overused words in Wikipedia film articles, and you and your buddy can't even figure out what they mean. —Coder Dan (talk) 17:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]