Talk:This Sweet Sickness

Plot outline

I've asked User:Heslopian the following question:

Hi, can you please explain to me why you have drastically shortened the plot outlines of This Sweet Sickness and School Days (and maybe others as well) without commenting on it anywhere (edit summary, talk page)? Classified as stubs, they are by definition begging to be expanded again, so what's the point? Also, the three dots at the end of your synopses are not appropriate for encyclopaedia articles. And a minor point, as far as I'm concerned: Has the fact that This Sweet Sickness is your personal favourite influenced your decision to change its rating from "Mid" to "Top" in any way?

<KF> 20:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The ensuing discussion:

Regarding my re-write of the synopsis for the articles you mentioned, I felt that many users might prefer a short, concise outline of the story instead of a long and turgid analysis. As for the lack of an edit summary, I have had trouble remembering those in the past (as you'll see from one of the above messages on this page); I really am sorry if my forgetfulness there caused any big problems, I promise I'll try harder! I've removed the ellipses you mentioned, I guess there just a side effect of my own pretentious nature (I try and make every single sentence seem artistic, sometimes to the detriment of my mental health!). Finally, I changed the article rating because I thought it needed serious improvement, although my partialness to the work probably did play a part in my decision.

Anyways, I hope I answered all your questions and didn't cause too much bother! --Heslopian (talk) 22:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer although it doesn't 100 per cent relate to my questions. First of all, just so that we are not talking at cross purposes, you might want to have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Novels/Assessment#Importance_scale: It's the work of literature that is rated ("Top" means "core" topic for literature), not the article, and hardly anyone will seriously claim that School Days is in a league with Lolita, Pride and Prejudice, or War and Peace.

As far as plot summaries are concerned, it's of course true that quality is more important than quantity. However, if you reduce an article from 8,716 bytes to a mere 2,227 bytes some kind of explanation apart from "Many users might prefer a short, concise outline of the story instead of a long and turgid analysis" would be necessary: Many other users might prefer as much information as they can get.

I do see the special problem with articles on crime fiction. Ever since the spoiler warning was abolished here at Wikipedia, I've been very careful not to give away too much in a summary. But again, this is an encyclopaedia, so anyone reading it should be prepared to learn something.

Finally, as I'm certainly not the person to engage in, let alone start, an edit war, I'm not going to revert any of your edits. I keep hoping that anyone really interested in a particular subject will check the revision history and access the more comprehensive version of the article.

All the best, <KF> 22:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I do hope I haven't annoyed you too much, I assure you I also have no intention of engaging in an edit war. If you think my re-writes are really that problematic I'll revert them in an instant, and I apologise if you feel I've ruined your hard work in any way. I just thought that people with an interest in the topic could learn something about it without having any potential surprises ruined for them.

Also, I did seem to be mistaken about the purpose of the article rating; of course I shan't argue that Robert B. Parker belongs on the same pedestal as Jane Austen and Leo Tolstoy! Best wishes, --Heslopian (talk) 01:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on This Sweet Sickness. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120114181613/http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/ripley-my-part-in-his-downfall-726050.html to http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/ripley-my-part-in-his-downfall-726050.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)