User talk:NYResident

September 2013[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one of your recent edits to The Murder on the Links has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: The Murder on the Links was changed by NYResident (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.868055 on 2013-09-23T15:00:22+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 15:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Three Agatha Christie plot summary edits[edit]

Hello NY Resident,

I just undid three major revisions you did to Plot summaries for novels by Agatha Christie. Main reason is that your summaries are longer, far longer, than what was there. Wikipedia prefers short summaries for novels, including mystery novels. 700 words is a comfortable length for Wikipedia. I know that many summaries are longer, but those need to be edited to be shorter, not longer. I did the same thing in my first plot summaries, and learned this same lesson from other editors.

As Agatha Christie wrote so many books, one can find a variety of plot summaries on Wikipedia, some quite well written and within the Wikipedia preference for length, and others perhaps accurate but way too long. It is easy to look at several to find how well done are the terse ones.

As to format, the title Plot summary is usually placed between two equal signs, so that it will be included in the table of contents for the article, and as the usual format for summaries of novels. Same for Plot introduction if there is one. The term spoiler alert is never used.

One that almost meets the Wikipedia guidelines is The A.B.C. Murders. The Plot summary alone meets the guidelines, stretched a bit by the Plot introduction, but still under 800 words combined.

Here are some useful guidelines Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary. You can see that it actually suggests 300 to 700 words as a good length for a summary. Check out the summaries for some of the novels by Charles Dickens, rather long books, done within those limits and doing a good job in the summary.

One of the summaries, The Clocks, could use editing to be shorter, and you are welcome to do that, respecting the usual format. I marked your talk page in case you want to respond here, or you can reply on mine.

Meaning this note in the spirit of Wikipedia editing standards, and sure that you can contribute to good plot summaries. --Prairieplant (talk) 20:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adding spoiler warnings[edit]

Please do not delete or flag potential "spoilers" in Wikipedia articles. It is generally expected that the subjects of Wikipedia articles will be covered in detail, and giving a section a title such as "Plot" or "Ending" is considered sufficient warning to the reader that the text will contain revelations about the narrative. Deleting such information makes the article less useful for a reader who is specifically trying to find out more about the subject. For more information, see Wikipedia's guidelines on spoilers. Thank you. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 15:52, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two more Agatha Christie plot summary edits[edit]

Hello again NYResident,

It is not clear why you think it is the standard for novels with Poirot to have super long summaries. I hope you can look at the many other summaries of novels on Wikipedia to see that brevity is preferred, and spoiler alert is NEVER included. Plus the format for the title, Plot summary, is done between two pairs of = signs.

I just reverted two other novels whose summaries you greatly lengthened. They can both use more abridging. I hope you read your talk page. It would be nice to hear from you. --Prairieplant (talk) 01:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since the above note, I looked at all the article for Agatha Christie novels. The plot summaries follow the Wikipedia guides, and use the layout with = signs to mark the headings. One or two still need a real plot summary, having only a plot introduction. Some of the summaries are too long, and need editing to be shorter, not longer, and perhaps more concisely summarized. Hope to hear from you. --Prairieplant (talk) 21:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow the Wikipedia rules on Plot summary for novels[edit]

Still more stories by Agatha Christie whose Plot summaries you lengthen instead of shorten, and you put them in the past tense instead of the present tense. The links to Wikipedia's guidance on plot summaries is already posted to your talk page. Can you please read it and follow it? All your changes have been reverted. Some were flagged as too long as soon you finished, but then reverted. It is great that you like Agatha Christie's novels and read them. It is not so great that you are not reading, or heeding, the messages on your talk page. --Prairieplant (talk) 15:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, NYResident. You have new messages at Talk:The Mysterious Affair at Styles.
Message added 04:00, 7 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The sense of the rules[edit]

NYResident -- Jim in Rye Brook, So glad to hear from you!

I am a person who does editing on Wikipedia, usually tied to fiction stories of interest to me. I started in the Ellis Peters novels, the Cadfael Chronicles, set in the 12th century in England, and rich with historical detail, which had me looking up the plots, and learning that the places, the famous people of the era, the crazy story of the Anarchy, were all real. I am not a very experienced editor, compared to some who have shared their knowledge with me. I learn as I go along.

I am sorry that you do not see any logic to the rule of summaries being short. Maybe over time the notion will fall into place for you? Wikipedia is not concerned with bytes of storage, rather with readable, "encyclopedic" articles. If you ignore the guidelines altogether, your contributions will be challenged and changed, or completely reverted, as long as another editor is interested in the topic. I hope that does not bother you too much.

You can learn lots more about Wikipedia by clicking the terms at the top of an Edit page, or here at the top of your Talk page.

Many of the guidelines can be found by a google search -- Wikipedia plot summary in the search bar brings these two links as the first in the list of sites to check out:

That is great that you make generous financial donations to Wikipedia. My donations are more the contributions I make to articles, and less in the form of money. --Prairieplant (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talking with another contributor to Wikipedia, I gained a list of the talk pages, that is, where other editors discuss the guidelines, for three Wikipedia project pages. You can see reasons there, and also take up the issue on those pages. You can see the guidelines they are discussing by clicking the Project Page tab at the top of the Talk page (same structure as for content articles). I accept these rules, but you might be inclined to discuss them, as you did not see the sense in them.

For disputes about the rules around plot summaries, there are talk pages to engage other editors about policies and conventions:

Enjoy! --Prairieplant (talk) 01:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]