Talk:The Godfather Part II/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Box office gross

Wikipedia film articles should not use the adjusted gross instead of the real gross. The adjusted gross is merely an estimation of what a film would make now rather than what it actually made when it was released. In the case of this particular film, it is difficult to find a source that includes the film's worldwide gross, but there are sources that state the film's domestic gross which can be used as long as it is made clear this amount is just for the US and Canada. L@zloFeelo^t@lk 17:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles should not use the domestic gross instead of the worldwide gross. The domestic gross lacks information about receipts outside the US. In the case of this film, there have been many box office numbers offered that don't make this mistake, so it's hard to understand why you insist on making a mistake. As MOS:Film says, "Provide a summary of the film's commercial performance (box office grosses), denominated in the film's national currency, if possible. Avoid indexical terminology such as "domestic". Moreover, there is not a consensus for this change. Those of you who are insisting on making this change are not following the policy on Consensus. So that's at least two policies you have wrong. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

We cannot use the worldwide gross as there are no reliable sources for it. A film's gross must be sourced. The only gross with a valid source I can find is the North American gross (and even that differs between Box Office Mojo and The Numbers). WP:MOSFILM simply states that we should avoid using the term "domestic", it does not say that we can't include the domestic gross in articles (i.e. it must say North America not just "domestic" so it is clear for readers). If you find a reliable source for the worldwide gross, you can add it to the article, but we do not use adjusted grosses for the infobox just to make a film look good. And it could be argued that you're the one not following consensus. L@zloFeelo^t@lk 13:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Where is the $193 million figure coming from, anyway? I see it appear in some Google search results, but nothing that seemed reliable. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I've searched for a reliable source as well and can't find one that substantiates that figure. Wikipedia is quite clear about removing unsourced material from articles. 88.104.23.237 (talk) 17:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not true. There's no policy that requires the removal of any and all unsourced material, since the majority of articles are unsourced. The requirement is "verifiable." Perhaps the original source of the $193MM international box office is no longer available, but that doesn't mean it's wrong. What is certainly wrong is using a domestic box office figure. The guidelines explicitly prohibit that. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Absolute rubbish. Read WP:VERIFY for Wikipedia's policy on this and you will see just how wrong you are. "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." And there is no guideline that says a domestic box office figure cannot be used, and since we cannot find a source for the worldwide figure that you are trying to include, the domestic box office figure is the best we can do. It appears that you have already been reported for edit warring so you're just making your situation worse. 88.104.28.251 (talk) 21:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Box Office Mojo quotes a figure of $47.5m. I'll also raise a note at the Film Project on this matter. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Now Google has disabled searches of its news archives it is very difficult to track down old box office data. However, "Blockbusting" edited by Alex Ben Block (a journalist for the Hollywood Reporter) has this to say for The Godfather 2: "Domestic Box Office Revenues: $47.5 million" (p. 570). For worldwide box office, it doesn't give an actual figure, but it does give an adjusted figure of $303.5 million (at 2005 US ticket prices) and also says this: "...brought in less than 40% of the first's total worldwide box office" (p. 571). The first film grossed $245 million or $285 million depending on which source you go with, but either way that suggests a gross below $115 million. Adjusted to 2005 US ticket prices it earned $303.5 million (p. 534) compared to the first film's $921 million, so if you adjust that figure back using Box Office Mojo's ticket price index, then that would put the 1974 worldwide gross at about $88.5 million (and the first film at $244 million at 1972 prices, which is virtually identical to the figure provided by BOM). Back in the 1970s box office was split fairly evenly between domestic and foreign so a $88.5 million global figure would be consistent with the reported $47 million domestic figure. I find the $193 million figure highly improbable based on the data we do have, and I'm wondering if it includes video and TV sales too. Betty Logan (talk) 11:52, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

According to The-Numbers, The Godfather Part II grossed $57.3 million worldwide. I don't know if this is considered reliable enough to include, but it's something. Corvoe (speak to me) 13:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The Numbers.com is as reliable as Box Office Mojo (sometimes more so) and is mentioned as a valid source in the FILM Infobox Template guidelines but the gross they quote is the domestic gross, not the worldwide. There's about $10m difference between what BOM and The Numbers are quoting as the domestic gross. 88.104.25.107 (talk) 14:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

When will there be a proposal to include the correct international box office? I recognize that several editors enjoy their ad hominem attacking against me, but the point here is to give the readers the correct information. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Being sarcastic isn't going to get you anywhere. No one is attacking you, people are fighting unreliable sources for international gross. As far as we can see, there isn't a good one. Corvoe (speak to me) 15:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, please don't delete sourced information just saying it's incorrect. The-Numbers is a reliable source, so until we get a reliable source showing the international box office gross, TN's North American gross will have to do. Corvoe (speak to me) 16:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

You misunderstand. I'm not being the least bit sarcastic. The point here is to include the international gross. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:25, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The Alex Block Blockbusting book is a reliable source. The only snag is that it gives all figures at the 2005 value adjusted by the MPAA ticket price. If you deflate the gross for the first film then you get $244 million which matches up to Box Office Mojo's $245 million, so I suggest simply deflating the 2005 figure they give for Godfather 2 per WP:CALC and adding that. It is likely to be accurate to within $1–2 million going by the deflated figure for the first film and at least then you have a worldwide figure. Betty Logan (talk) 16:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I feel like that's teetering between WP:CALC and WP:OR, but if there is a uniform MPAA ticket inflation rate formula (or UMTIRF for short, a new phrase I just coined), maybe it would be doable. I'm a little too on the fence to say for sure, but if said UMTIRF exists, go for it. Just make sure we leave a note so nobody tries to question the figure. Corvoe (speak to me) 16:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The MPAA don't list ticket prices themselves, but do seem to track them: [1] and [2] both give the same figure for 1974 ticket prices and source them to the MPAA. It's not perfect, but if the aim is to provide a global figure it is the best we have at the moment. At the very least the 193 figure is extremely unlikely going by that so we shouldn't retain it unless we can source it. Betty Logan (talk) 16:36, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Given the unusual situation with the sources, may I suggest that we list the Alex Block number and parenthetically mention it is in 2004 dollars. Alongside the domestic gross number that we have. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:25, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I think adding an adjusted figure to the infobox would set a poor precedent. There is no reason why it can't be added to the main box-office section though. Betty Logan (talk) 18:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

No, because putting an adjusted-for-inflation gross in the infobox is how this all started. An adjusted gross is merely an hypothetical estimate of what a film might have made in later years. As per film infobox guidelines[3], if a worldwide gross cannot be found then a domestic gross can be used as long as it is clear for which country it is for. 88.104.25.107 (talk) 17:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, because we are supposed to provide information, not hide it. Seems like your wish to attack me is clouding your judgment. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:41, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

We are supposed to provide sourced information. If it cannot be verified, then we cannot use it. And you have now just broken 3RR. L@zloFeelo^t@lk 17:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Worldwide Box Office

The claim is made that worldwideboxoffice.com is not a reliable source. The assertion appears baseless. What's the explanation? --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

The explanation is that the site freely admits that it uses IMDB as a source and IMDB is a user-generated site like Wikipedia is (i.e. it can be edited by anybody). IMDB has been deemed unreliable as a source for Wikipedia articles. 88.104.24.157 (talk) 04:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

The site is clearly carefully curated and frequently updated. If it's got numbers wrong, I'm sure you can list the many obvious mistakes. --Ring Cinema (talk) 11:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

What evidence do you have the site is "carefully curated" other than your own opinion? The site's sources section clearly lists IMDB as one of its sources (which is the only other place I can see the $193 million figure quoted). In this respect, IMDB is not a reliable source for Wikipedia articles as per WP:RS/IMDB. 88.104.24.157 (talk) 11:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I understand you to say that you have found no errors on the site. Neither have I. Is there some reason why you are trying to keep the international box office number out of the infobox? --Ring Cinema (talk) 12:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

While its figures look accurate in many cases (but then so do IMDB's) I have to say it is not clear at first look that worldwideboxoffice.com is a "reliable source" by our own criteria: namely there is no evidence of independent professional editorial oversight. It seems to fail WP:SPS unless we can clarify its authorship and establish that its author is a published "expert" in film journalism. Betty Logan (talk) 13:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Use of "careful" to characterize restoration.

It can be shown that "restoration" has over time changed in technique and quality for all types of object including film and photography. What was considered thoughtful and careful years ago can be now considered less than desirable since some actions do not what is now the primary consideration of restoration of what we do today will not hinder what can be done in the future with the continued development of restoration. So the level of restoration can be described in terms of being fundamental, middle range or extensive but "careful" is a very subjective opinion. Years ago a careful restoration may have been to bring something to a state of usability and the original not preserved for continued consideration because it was just not in the mind set or capability at the time. For film that could mean image transfer or duplication from the original that could be too delicate to be put through any type of commercial machine on to new film stock so that it can be viewed. More restoration could be replacing damaged or missing scenes. Adjusting the distortions that can happen over the shrinking of unstable film stock. Adjusting for color loss, etc. Even bad restoration can be carefully done and probably any one would say that they were careful in their efforts but it does not tell you to what level of quality was restoration done.GinAndChronically (talk) 23:27, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Prequel or interquel?

An editor is insisting on removing the film from Category:Interquel films and placing it in Category:Prequel films. I dispute this on two points:

• The film depicts events following and preceding the original film, so serves as part prequel in one respect and part sequel in another. While it is true that an "interquel" is usually set between previous installments I see nothing in the definition that would bar The Godfather 2 from being classed as an "interquel", since it still depicts events that are set following and prior to previous entries in the series. It is simply just an atypical example.

• While there may be a legitimate debate regarding whether the film counts as an "interquel", it simply does not conform to the definition of a prequel. If it were a prequel then all the events depicted in the film would precede all the events depicted in the predecessor, because that is the definition.

I would like to get further input at this discussion, but in the meantime I will remove it from both disputed categories. Betty Logan (talk) 11:28, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Having carefully studied the argument above, and read Wrath X's (repeated) edit summary, I now give my support to Betty's interpretation. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 10:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I've been thinking that it is probably best to keep it out of both categories. It clearly intersects a previously established storyline, but since it doesn't match the definition of "interquel" exactly then we probably shouldn't add it without a source; as for being a "prequel" it completely fails the definition because it it is mostly a continuation of the storyline. Betty Logan (talk) 10:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Betty, you seem to be correct. It's actually a double story, prequel and sequel. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Only sequel to win best picture

Is Return of the King not considered a sequel? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.84.45.140 (talk) 22:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Change to plot

Since the entire plot is undocumented, I changed a detail of Frank Pentangeli's suicide. Hagen never threatened the lives of Pentangeli's family. He offered continuing financial support as an inducement for the suicide. I changed the article accordingly. Any objections? Tapered (talk) 15:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Posted on Gareth Griffith-Jones's Talk page

Re- Godfather 2
Im quite aware of how to edit and have done so in the past. I understand you want to keep the plot concise however it is a 200 minute film and the ot points I added are crucial. But, I do understand uf certain plot points need to be left out. However, one thing Indis fix was the chronology. By reverting back to the current plot as is, you are critically out of order chronologically speaking. Michael heard his brother "inadverindently" first. He then, secondly, tried to kill Roth on New Years Eve, BECAUSE, of what he inadvertently heard. Very misleading the way it's presented to readers. Especially considering its one of the few films to win Best Picture at the Oscars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnderosa (talk • contribs) 10:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
— | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 10:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

You have no history of editing Wikipedia. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 10:54, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I have edited other pages before. I wrote from 'anonomous' on many other pages. I totally understand the need to be concise. I won't argue there. But, again, this film won the academy award winner for best picture. And for us, to get wrong and misrepresent the cchronologyof the only sequel to win that honor...I just think Wikipedia can do better than that. I'll take a second stab at it. Johnderosa (talk) 11:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The events in the film do not have to be written in the order in which they appear on screen. Sometimes we change the order the film's events to improve our understanding of the plot. See how to write a plot summary and copyediting essentials. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 16:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Italics and indentations in plot summary

The use of italics and indentations is ugly, non-standard, and confusing. I'd rewrite the summary myself but I've never seen the movie so I'd probably screw things up. Are they necessary? Why not just clarify the different periods in standard prose? Popcornduff (talk) 16:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

If you trawl through this page's archives you will see this has been discussed frequently. No better method has been thought of yet, in dealing with the two timeframes. — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  17:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

It looks like this has, over the years, been such a cause of confusion that it would take a very strong argument indeed to justify using it. Is it really so difficult to just specify each era in standard prose, as, for example, the Kill Bill: Volume 2 article does, rather than resort to gimmicky formatting? Popcornduff (talk) 18:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I note also that it's 100 words over the WP:FILMPLOT limit. I have never, in my years of editing film pages, come across a film that can't be adequately summarised in 700 words... Popcornduff (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

"The Godfather Part II was initially met with a lukewarm reception from critics"

To whoever put that in the article, are you sure? Because I'm having trouble finding any evidence of that, and the movie's immediate success at the Academy Awards would strongly suggest that this was not the popular perception among critics. (One or two negative or lukewarm reviews is not evidence, whether they were written at the time of the movie's release or not. As much can be found for virtually any movie in existence.) As is, this sounds more like affinity for an over-told story, a masterpiece that the big, bad critics "misunderstood" at first.

A story of how a critic reevaluated it would be fair enough, like Roger Ebert, but even then, keep in mind that he said he wouldn't change a word of his original review and that the reason he considered it a "great movie" was simply because it could not be taken separately from the first movie. 74.111.121.164 (talk) 14:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Sources 10, 11, and 14, as well as others like Peter Biskind's The Godfather Companion (quoted here) and Daniel Eagan's America's Film Legacy, do indeed prove that the initial reception for The Godfather Part II was significantly mixed. I will add those two sources after changing the wording slightly. AndrewOne (talk) 15:47, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

We're going in the right direction here by talking about sources, but it's hard to consider this "proven," when the new sources merely state it in a single sentence as an offhand, unsupported claim. The ones the article already have, again, all cite the same 2 critics at most, one of them even stating that the movie was not panned, merely reviewed less glowingly than the first one. The sources gathered might at least support that consensus, but the notion that the negative, dismissive reviews were as prominent as the positive ones sounds more fitting of, say, Blade Runner or It's a Wonderful Life. The Godfather Part II was one of the biggest all around successes the year it was released, and Canby's is still the only negative review by a major critic that anyone has cited. 74.111.121.164 (talk) 18:18, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This film predates the Internet, so there may have been print sources considered that we cannot access. Alternatively, we can find reliable sources that say the film was well-received upon premiere, and we can do in-text attribution for who says what. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Elderly Michael

I have attempted several times to note that, in the final scene of the movie, Michael is meant to be significantly older than in the rest of the film. This has been reverted without debate by two separate users for a variety of reasons (one considers it "superfluous" while another took umbrage with the fact that I cited the film's script). I believe that this is a topic worthy of discussion here, as I feel it warrants inclusion in the article:

1) The film is full of time-jumps, from the switching back-and-forth between Michael and Vito's stories, to the time lapses within Vito's own story, to Michael's own flashback sequence at the end of the film. The final shot/scene of the film represents one final time jump to a period we haven't yet visited, which is noteworthy.

2) Even more noteworthy is the thematic implication of the final scene. Michael isn't simply alone in the immediate aftermath of Fredo's death, he's alone several years in the future. The final scene of the film tells us that Michael's actions throughout the movie reverberate far, far into the future, to the point that an elderly Michael is isolated, unlike his elderly (unseen) father gathering with family and friends in the previous flashback. For Michael to be alone right after Fredo's death carries its' own kind of weight; for him to still be alone in his old age is even weightier.

And, on a completely meta level, if Michael's being older wasn't noteworthy, the production team and Coppola wouldn't have gone through the trouble of putting grey into Pacino's hair and applying old-age makeup. They evidently wanted there to be some audience response to this.68.116.145.47 (talk) 17:26, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

The adjective elderly is superfluous, but I would rather leave it in than deal with an edit war. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 18:22, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree "elderly" is superfluous and adds nothing but clutter which I'm reverting. SlightSmile 18:41, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

How is elderly superfluous when Michael is, in fact, significantly older in the final scene of the film? I'm also going to add this back in until consensus has been reached-- three opinions does not a consensus make.68.116.145.47 (talk) 21:21, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Something else to consider: The plot summary notes that Vito progresses in age through his flashbacks. Why? Because it's important to the plot of the story. It matters that Vito is a child when the film begins, and not a teenager or young adult; similarly, it matters that he is no longer a child when he meets Fanucci and steals the rug with Clemenza. Similarly, it's important to an understanding of the film that Michael is an old man in the final scene and not a thirty-something any longer. We should no more neglect to include Michael being elderly than we would exclude information about Vito's age progression through his flashbacks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.116.145.47 (talk) 23:28, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Just finished watching and we could argue how much he's aged in that scene. Let the readers decide on their own if he's old. I don't see consensus on your change so stop edit warring. SlightSmile 02:05, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I attempted to add a cite to the script, which states he is meant to be much older, but another user repeatedly deleted it, insisting there's no need for a citation. I'm no more edit warring by attempting to add factual, relevant information to the summary than other users are by deleting it. (There's also been no opportunity for a consensus).68.116.145.47 (talk) 14:31, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Further-- a reference to "three years" passing in Vito's timeline has remained in the summary for some time without question. The film never states how many years have passed. I don't argue that this is unnecessary, but, why is there no quarelling over a very specific time duration being assumed when we're not allowing a very general one in?68.116.145.47 (talk) 14:34, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I went into your ref with the weird pop ups. I'm not interested in their diet plan but thank you. SlightSmile 14:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

The final scene was set in 1968 when Michael would have been 48, so eight years after the main story ended in 1960. (2A00:23C4:6384:600:E52F:A3DC:A707:FC90 (talk) 07:38, 30 August 2017 (UTC))

So not "elderly" – thank you. Cheers! Gareth Griffith‑Jones (The Welsh Buzzard) 08:31, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Lead changes

I have proposed this change to the lead: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Godfather_Part_II&oldid=887913116

Not only is it more comprehensive than the one currently on the article, but it also provides clearer reading. It is an obvious improvement, yet it was nonsensically reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoogieFreeman (talk • contribs) 20:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The plot summary

It looks to us that the plot summary in the article is way too long. Per WP:FILMPLOT, the plot should be between 400-700 words to assure that it does not take up too much space in the article. I'm sure this user, Gareth Griffith-Jones knows this stuff very well. But suddenly, there has to be some kind of consensus that we must petition to shorten the plot. Slasher405 (talk) 19:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

"The Godfather: Part II (1974 film)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The Godfather: Part II (1974 film). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk (We are the champions, my friends) 09:51, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Flashback dates

As I recall (I've seen the film hundreds of times, but it's been a year or two since the last time), the first flashback of the young adult Vito says "1917" on the screen. However, this plot summary dates his killing of Fanucci to 1920 and his return to Sicily to kill Ciccio to 1923. Where do those two dates come from?Paulturtle (talk) 22:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Hundreds of times - that's crazy. Anyway, you appear to be right. I just checked through the film and the only dates that are conferred on screen are 1901, 1958 and 1917. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 22:29, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, those are the three dates I remember. Maybe somebody got them from an online script, or from the novel (which I read years ago but don't have to hand), or one of those fanboy books which come out about once a decade. It ought to be deleted or footnoted if it's not actually what the film says.

I first saw the film right through in 1992 - I bought the video of the two films plus deleted scenes put in chronological order (think it's called The Godfather Saga) and watched it many times then. Assuming an average of once or twice a year since then (even twice in the cinema in 1996) maybe about a hundred times, then.Paulturtle (talk) 21:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Cool - I wasn't trying to be sarcastic if it came across that way by type - was amazed - I mean you must've watched it tons of times to know those dates off by heart. But yes, no matter what the book says (haven't read it) or anywhere else - it's what the film says - and those are the only dates conferred. I had removed them. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 23:06, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Worldwide gross

Why are we giving any credence to Box Office Mojo showing no data for a worldwide figure prior to 1990? Clearly the film grossed more than $0 overseas!Sudiani (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

It does show ~$100,000 in international sales.. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 19:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

lol. Sure, the original grossed $100 mil overseas and the sequel, only grossed $100k! The $100k is just from a 2010 re-issue. They don't have data for the 1970s hence why the Variety figure is the only realistic figure out there.Sudiani (talk) 20:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Plot summary changes

Reasons why my recent changes are, in fact, improvements:

1. They identify Fanucci as an extortionist as soon as he is introduced, not in the next paragraph.
2. The prior text places "an offer he don't refuse" in entirely the wrong context. (Vito says it on the day of the festa, not when he and his partners are discussing what to do.)
3. For those who seem to complain non-stop about the summary being too long: the changes reduce the length by 46 characters.

73.71.251.64 (talk) 18:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't mind the changes, I just think we should avoid using the quote. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 23:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

That's fine, because the reduction of length was mainly from eliminating the quote. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 05:51, 2 June 2021 (UTC)