User talk:Bobbyandbeans

Stargate (film)

Hello,

I saw your plot tag on the above movie and having spent the afternoon watching the movie, I reduced the plot substantially taking out plot bloats etc. Would appreciate it if you could take a once over and just see if I have crossed my t's and dotted my i's.

Thank you! :)

MisterShiney (Come say hi) 17:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Bullitt plot section edits

Greetings, user Bobbyandbeans. I see (after making considerable edits to the Bullitt page one end to the other you are avidly patroling movie pages with overlong plot sections, adding tags and cutting them down to fit under 700 words. Do understand that the 700 word "limit" is a suggestion, a yardstick, not an iron rule. Half or so the edits I made to Bullitt's plot section were general clean-up of sentence structure and such, the other half small additions in content to make otherwise unclear or insufficiently developed plot points appropriately so. I have since found they bring the section to 717 words. I'd appreciate your understanding the above and not mincing the effort.

Where articles are needlessly or grossly beyond the suggested plot section size keep up the good work. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 16:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

First, I am not "patroling" anything; when I visit a movie page for info and find the plot section too long, I tag it. I don't have time to "patrol" anything on Wiki. Second, WP:FILMPLOT states: "Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words. The summary should not exceed the range unless the film's structure is unconventional, such as Pulp Fiction's non-linear storyline, or unless the plot is too complicated to summarize in this range. (Discuss with other editors to determine if a summary cannot be contained within the proper range.)" While I completely agree that some films cannot be summarized this easily, I would hardly think Bullitt is "unconventional" or "too complicated." For example, in your recent edit, you state in the last line, "After taking off his gun and placing it on a table he looks at himself in the bathroom mirror and seems troubled by what he sees looking back at him." How is the taking off of the gun and placing it on the table important to the plot of the story? Why is this a vital bit of information viewers need to know? You also seem to be overly descriptive, with a "protracted, highly dangerous" car chase (aren't all car chases dangerous?) that ends in a "fiery crash." None of these descriptive words are vital and they contribute to the plot summary being overly wordy. Rather than instructing me on what changes I (or anyone else) should or should not do on Wikipedia, I suggest you open a discussion on the Talk page and get input from other editors as to why you feel your edits are necessary and reach a concensus for the page.Bobbyandbeans (talk) 17:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Kind editor Bobbyand beans, reviewing your contributions it's clear that plot section length is an avid interest of yours. Vis-a-vis the additions you cite, Bullitt taking off and placing his gun down before splashing his face is (in the general view of reviewers such as at IMDB) an intentional addition by the filmmakers seemingly triggering Bullitt to reflect on the exploding conflict between his relationship (expressed as the peacefully sleeping Cathy) and his occupation (as a source of trouble for Cathy and something even he appears to be weighing the merits of given the two days or so just past, spanning various murders, his shooting to death of Johnny Ross in a very public place, and his contentious dealings with the smarmy and ambitious Chalmers character and Chalmers' toady in the SFPD Captain Baker). That's why I added the ten expository words there (Having no idea at the time there was any need to count and parse each one to fit under some arbitrary size limit suggestion). As for the other five words, "protracted, highly dangerous" is a highly economical way of exceptionally briefly characterizing a revolutionary 10-minute or so (asserted Academy Award-earning, movie defining, genre redefining, and public imagination capturing chase nearly half a century later) otherwise devoid of warranted depiction; "firey crash" simply sums in two brief words both how the chase ends and what becomes of the two hitmen (and threats to Bullitt) who theretofore had crucial roles in the plot's development.

By no means are these small additions "overly descriptive" (as you characterize them, nor am I, likewise), they're merely five words among 700 and change in the section, discussed minutely here merely because they are among the newest, and a third fraction of those few which ever so slilghtly push the section's word count above a suggested length limit. There is no slavishness or absolute about the latter: Wikipedia does not have a software loop which lops off the 701st word, or prevents an editor (in the instance a highly experienced one with some 12,000 or so edits to the encylopedia) from adding one over by rejecting the edit, "Sorry, section full". It is appropriate those making admirable efforts to pare down gratuitously overlong plot sections at movie pages be similarly less than slavish in their interpetation and pursuit of such a suggested goal. Do regard the use of the word "should" in Wikipedia's MOS, not must, and consider even with these small additions I lopped some 1,500 bytes (reflecting 265 words) out of the article as a whole. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration. Yours. Wikiuser100 (talk) 18:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• Because of what I do for a living, I need to look up info on movies quite often. Unfortunately I've found too many Wiki contributors feel a need to add every detail about a plot in their summary, which is cumbersome, clunky, and unnecessary, hence the tags. It's not an "interest" by any means; please stop assuming my mentality.
• One main reason for not having an overly detailed or wordy plot is that you lose a reader's interest. When something is too long, they click away, or lose the point of the summary when they're tripping over so many details.
• My note about WP:PLOT is to point out that 700 words is listed as a max; ultimately the plot should be less than that. Note that plot tags state that it may be "too long or overly descriptive," so caution is needed in adding too much description, not just words count. Your detailed description of minor actions (taking off the gun and putting it down on the table) are unnecessary (should we also mention the TV dinners he buys, to emphasize he's a loner?), and can also be more adequately summed up ("...two empty sets of passport and airline ticket folders, two brochures from a Chicago based international travel agency advertising one of their Rome vacation packages, and hidden in the pockets of two sets of clothing a pair of travelers checks books denominated in thousands" could be described as "travel papers from Chicago and traveler's checks").
• As for the car chase scene, note that it has its own section on the page, so it does not need to be overly detailed in the plot section. "Extended" I might agree with, but "dangerous" is just redundant. Everything in a cop movie is "dangerous," that's why they carry guns.
• Again, I strongly disagree that your edits are necessary. This is not just about demanding some arbitrary word count be followed, but about unnecessary details that are clunky and cumbersome, and immaterial. Again I would suggest you open it on the Talk page and get a concensus since neither of us owns the page or should have the final say.Bobbyandbeans (talk) 18:48, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I took 265 words out, accidentally ending 17 over in the plot section. What you call "max" is a suggested max. Only good faith was involved. I've invested more effort here defending the 17 under attack than making dozens of edits on the page at issue.

Wikipedia just takes a survey to learn why it loses so many good editors. They only need review exchanges like this.

All the same, your forebearance in not launching an edit war over this is appreciated. Cheers Wikiuser100 (talk) 20:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• "Good" editors don't explain scenes in the clunky and cumbersome manner you do. You're not a good editor by any means; you're a blatherer. Making thousands of edits doesn't make you good, that just makes you talkative.
• Again, this isn't about word count, it's about why you've gone over word count ... your excessively detailed descriptions that are unnecessary and which probably lose readers.
• I might also point out that you didn't need to "defend" anything, since I never "attacked" your edits; Bullitt isn't even on my watchlist. You came to my page, telling me what to do (which is inappropriate as a concensus should be reached on a Talk page, not with one editor telling another what to do, but whatevs...). If you're going to open a dialogue with me, I'm going to respond. If you feel a need to continue repeating yourself after my response, that's your problem, not mine. I didn't invite you here and again, I never touched your edits. Don't suggest Wiki look at "exchanges like this," because if they did they would note that you're the one who started this garbage, wasting everyone's time defending your edits which were unnecessary to begin with, and which I never questioned in the first place. Bobbyandbeans (talk) 21:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)