Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Spinout articles about a singular topic

[edit]

I noticed a sentence that was italicized for no apparent reason. It turns out this was done 16 years ago. Is the statement in question even still true, let alone worthy of emphasis? 183.89.250.246 (talk) 02:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten that whole paragraph, as it seemed poorly worded. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 04:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plot summary points

[edit]

In regards to the edits reverted here:

[1] It seemed best to make this into one sentence, as multiple storylines in one work seems like the only conceivable case where a plot summary should not follow the order of events in the story. At first, I didn't even quite grasp the train of thought here, so condensing this into one sentence seems worthwhile.

[2] There is no benefit in trying to balance the length of a plot summary with the rest of the article. Rather, you should try to write the best plot summary you can, and the best exploration of real-world aspects that you can. As I explained in the edit summary, I also felt that some of that text contradicted itself. That text could be replaced, as a correlation between plot complexity and summary length is a worthwhile point. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 06:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When your edits are reverted and you make a talk page post requesting feedback, it is best practice to wait more than a day before making the same or similar edits again. Please wait for input here before making anymore changes.
  • I disagree with you that there is no relationship between the length of a plot section and the rest of the article. A notable stub with a 700 word summary of the plot and nothing apart from one other sentence places undue weight on the plot itself see WP:NOTPLOT. There are, should be no, magic numbers here. This is a subjective decision made by editors based on this guidance. Adding the reference to NOVELS is helpful and I will add it back.
  • I disagree with you that the only time that there are no other benefits with tweaking the timeline in the summary vs the fiction (remember that this article applies to writing about all types of fiction in articles). For example, if a character has an ulterior motive for doing something, it might make more sense in mentioning earlier in the summary, rather than then having to dedicate additional text to a relatively unimportant sub-plot regarding the reveal later. The current text provides adequate guidance to editors about when and why they should do this, which is sufficient.
  • The other minor tweaks did not seem to change or improve the guidance.
As a general point, based on what I observed during your 100+ edits to NOVELs, which I wasn't able to fully monitor, please ask yourself before you edit, "what problem am I trying to solve"? Some of your edits were helpful, some of them made no real difference and were basically cosmetic and some stemmed from your misunderstanding of existing consensus. I have no doubt you're trying to make improvements, but making so many edits that mix wording and content changes are going to get reverted. I would suggest that if you see something that could maybe be worded better without changing the meaning, make one change and leave it for several days. If no one reverts it, make another one. If you see some content in a guideline that you disagree with, either make one change and open a talkpage discussion, or better yet just open a talk page discussion. I'm not trying to put you off making improvements, but you're going much too fast.Scribolt (talk) 12:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to wait longer, but another user edited the section in question, introducing awkward wording, and I thought a better alternative would be to borrow wording from MOS:NOVEL. Then while I was at it, I made other changes. Seeing the state of disrepair some of these pages were in has made me more bold in editing them.
In regards to balancing length of the plot summary with the rest of the article, the important thing is that we do our best to write a compact plot summary and also do our best with other topics. If the rest of the article consists of only one sentence, obviously it needs to be expanded, or if it can't be, the article shouldn't exist. Also, the current wording The length of the prose should be carefully balanced with the length of the other sections, as well as the length of the story itself; simple plots may require only short summaries seems self-contradictory. A story could be long, but have a simple plot.
In regards to chronological order, mentioning an ulterior motive before it is revealed in the story was the kind of thing I originally thought that was primarily referring to. Hence this edit.
As for "minor tweaks", I would say this added a significant missing word. are notable for their own standalone article technically means something very different. Likewise, a significant word was missing here, as I noted in the edit summary, though it seemed better just to remove that whole phrase, as it was redundant. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 14:51, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For your first point, your version doesn't recommend against writing a 700 plot summary with a five word sourced sentence, the previous version does so in my view it's better. For your second, I guess it would be slightly better if it was slightly more consistent regarding story length re plot complexity, but again what problem are we trying to solve? This is cosmetic at best, how many people are getting confused because they have a long story with a simple plot vs a short one with a complex one? This is a tweak at best, probably positive, but by lumping it with other edits that genuinely change the meaning you're making it hard for people to follow you. We can maybe discuss this further, maybe others will chime in.
Your change re chronology is not an improvement. You removed the text that said why and when someone might do it. If doing it improves and condenses the summary, that's all an editor needs to know to do it. If it doesn't, they shouldn't.
Sufficiently maybe reads slightly better, but it doesn't seem important in terms of how editors should proceed, the subjects are either notable or not. Maybe I'm missing something? You're right about the obvious missing word, but I disagree about the redundancy, category spam needs explicity discouraging as well as simply defining what's correct.Scribolt (talk) 17:12, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about changing Strictly avoid creating pages consisting only of a plot summary to Strictly avoid creating pages which consist of a plot summary and little else. That pretty much tells you not to have a plot summary and then just one sentence of sourced commentary. The unhelpful and perhaps contradictory points about balancing length could then be removed. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 19:56, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not clear to me how what you propose is better than what is there already, and I'm not convinced yet that the current version is particularly unhelpful or contradictory. For the record, I think we should never have a plot only article. I think this guidance should also recommend that we don't have articles which have articles with minimal information apart from a full plot summary, so therefore I think the rest of the article should be considered when expanding a plot section. This isn't prescriptive and it doesn't need to be, but it's good practice for editors to consider which is what the guideline currently says. I think that the number of cases where you have a lengthy book with such a simple plot (or vice versa) that the current text provides serious issues to the editor are so vanishing rare that I don't see an issue to be solved, but if you have an elegant solution within the current text structure I'd be open to suggestions. Scribolt (talk) 08:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. I think we have solved this. It may be true that the points about balancing length would rarely cause a problem, but on the other hand they are not helpful either, as long as we make clear that a plot summary plus one or two sentences is not adequate for an article. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 14:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[9] How about Summaries do not need to strictly follow the fiction's chronological order if presenting details in a different sequence improves and condenses the summary. That preserves "improves and condenses" while removing "do not need to stay true to" and "going out of order". 183.89.250.246 (talk) 16:09, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what benefit there is in changing out of order to strictly follows beyond the fact that you said you didn't like it, but ok I guess. No to the other suggestion, we do not "present details" when writing a summary. Scribolt (talk) 16:23, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about Summaries may deviate from the fiction's chronological order if doing so enhances clarity or brevity? MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like "may deviate from". While you might technically deviate from the chronological order, that characterization doesn't seem right. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 01:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about Summaries do not need to strictly follow the fiction's chronological order if that would not make for a good summary. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 13:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately, we want it to say that if a more concise or easier-to-understand plot summary can be made by presenting plot points out of order, do that. We want to encourage editors to make a better summary if they have to deviate, that negative form is not really capturing that. Masem (t) 13:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Masem. IP, could you articulate what your problem actually is with the as-is text? Scribolt (talk) 14:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The way it's stated just sounds wrong to me. But if no one else sees a problem, I guess that's that. Sorry to have wasted your time with this. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 14:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a waste of time, language improvements help, just that here let's try to spin it positive, that going out of plot order can some times be a benefit. — Masem (t) 14:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'246, you have now changed it to read "Summaries do not need to strictly follow the fiction's chronological order if going out of order improves and condenses the summary". Unless I have misunderstood this discussion, that not what other editors are expecting. Can we please finalise the wording here and not keep making partial changes to that sentence? For me, "going out of order" sounds highly colloquial, bordering on weird. Perhaps it would be suitably formal in US English, I don't know. I'm perfectly happy with "deviate from", but we could instead have Summaries may depart from the fiction's chronological order if doing so enhances clarity or brevity. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:46, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad I'm not the only one to see a problem with "going out of order". I like your proposed wording, and would prefer "depart" rather than "deviate". 183.89.250.246 (talk) 18:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with Michael's suggestion. Scribolt (talk) 07:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Primary information" and "secondary information"

[edit]

In the Sources of information section, is it even helpful to talk about "primary information" and "secondary information"? I realize information comes from sources, but it would be more straightforward just to talk about primary and secondary sources, and what information can be found in each. Also, the example of another episode of the same TV series may be problematic, as using one episode as a source regarding a different episode is likely to be original research. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 09:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, agreed. MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Real-world perspective

[edit]

This section is far too long, and concentrates too much on persuading editors what is bad about in-universe view, rather than just telling them not to use it. Probably it was written decades ago when there were still active arguments about how fiction articles should be presented. Now, all that's needed is to tell editors to use a real-world perspective, and to give some examples of what to avoid. MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking the same thing, but wasn't sure what to remove. Do we even need the bullet-point lists? 183.89.250.246 (talk) 13:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe just a few consolidated examples. It would also be less confusing not to mix up what's expected in the Plot section and what's expected elsewhere. MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm now thinking that it would be best to remove the entire bullet-point list from MOS:INUNIVERSE, as those examples are almost all either redundant or not very helpful. If anyone thinks that a particular item from that list is helpful, and it is not redundant to something else on this page, please point it out. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 16:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we can remove the list entirely as I have seen all of those cases in misuse of plot summaries and the list. Trimming is fair but should stick to a few key cases. — Masem (t) 16:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This could almost replace that entire section. It would remove a lot, but much of that is redundant to things that appear elsewhere on the page.
All Wikipedia articles should use the real world as their primary frame of reference. As such, the subject should be described from the perspective of the real world. With fiction, this means not writing from the perspective of the fictional world. Many fan wikis and websites treat fictional worlds as if they were real, but this should not be done in Wikipedia. An in-universe perspective can mislead the reader, who may have trouble differentiating between fact and fiction within the article.
Keeping a real-world perspective also means limiting the amount of detail regarding the fiction itself. An article about a fictional character should not necessarily include the kinds of details that would appear in a biographical article of a real person. Backstory should be kept to a minimum, not treated as actual history might be. Compulsive Brainstormer (talk) 22:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Will need to get back to this after Christmas. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mass edits by blocked IP editor

[edit]

I've been trying my best to follow all the recent IP edits, to make sure they have been constructive. They seem to be in good faith, as far as I can tell, even if editors (including myself) have disagreed / modified some of them. I'm slightly suspicious that many of the recent edits have come from an IP coming from a blocked proxy server. I don't think it's inherently disqualifying, but it is suspicious enough to deserve review from longtime editors with a more transparent history. Creating an account helps other editors to evaluate our history of engaging in good faith. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The editor has been doing excellent and well-supported work overhauling a collection of guidelines that have, to my knowledge, never been systematically reviewed. I hope they will return. MichaelMaggs (talk) 03:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much. I was considering stepping aside, but your comment has persuaded me that I should help to finish the cleanup, though I may restrict my activity to talk page comments for a while. I am the person who was using the IP. Compulsive Brainstormer (talk) 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back! MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back. Like I said, I've found your work constructive on first review, so thanks for contributing. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:45, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, 2A02:20C8:4120:0:0:0:0:A03D (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (which also appears to be a proxy?) just reverted all changes going back months at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction[10], Wikipedia:No disclaimers[11], Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections[12], and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Novels[13] while making reference to this discussion. I have reverted the edit at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections, and MichaelMaggs reverted the ones at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Novels[14] and Wikipedia:No disclaimers[15] while I was writing this. I would also note that the IP was WP:Blocked as an WP:Open proxy, not WP:Banned for cause (or blocked for cause, for that matter). TompaDompa (talk) 09:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do we proceed with this page? In contrast with the other pages mentioned, there is still little consensus here about the improvements needed, and it probably makes sense to re-start the discussions again, going from the text of 7 November 2024 which is where today's revert has left us. Suggest working from there section by section (not necessarily in order), and seeking consensus here on the talk page in each case before updating the guideline. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging users who have contributed since 7 November: User:Scribolt, User:Masem, User:Shooterwalker, User:HeartGlow30797, User:Frost, User:Tea2min, User:Boneless Pizza!, User:Sofia. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, just a mindless patroller without a leg to stand on when it comes to MOS. I looked into the user contributions when I reverted it and saw little activity about discussion of this removal. In the future, I will be more diligent and I won’t revert without first evaluating the full talk page. Cheers, Heart (talk) 13:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

'Secondary information'

[edit]

Compulsive Brainstormer's recent edits to remove confusing reliance on a definition of 'Secondary information' (as distinct from Secondary sources - an entirely novel concept in Wikipedia guidelines, so far as I can tell) has been undone by Frost who has asked for consensus. As requested, I'm posting here to confirm my agreement with Compulsive Brainstormer's edits. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also started a thread about this 11 days ago. You agreed, and it appeared that no one disagreed, so that was why I thought it was OK to make the edit. Do you also agree with this removal? Four of the examples were things that shouldn't usually be included or would merit at most a brief mention, and plot is covered below, so I thought that list was unhelpful. Compulsive Brainstormer (talk) 17:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I do. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that the section didn't say much about what secondary sources to use. Should we mention Google Scholar? That is useful for literature but maybe not other media. Compulsive Brainstormer (talk) 18:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

[edit]

First of all, the point about "secondary information" has been discussed, in two different threads above. There was no objection to removing that wording. The removal was not entirely straightforward, but the recent reverts have not pointed to anything specific that someone might have disagreed with (if someone does want to discuss that, it would probably be best to use one of the above threads). The other edits were relatively small, but since they have also been mass-reverted:

  • Special:Diff/1265917739 Those are not usually things that should be included in Wikipedia articles, other than the plot, which is discussed further down on the page.
  • Special:Diff/1266101815 That section introduction seemed unnecessary; the section title and the See also link seemed more than sufficient.
  • Special:Diff/1266167883 WP:NOT was effectively linked twice in the same sentence. Once an article about fiction or a fictional subject meets basic policies and guidelines gets ahead of itself. In context, the point is that sufficient sources exist, and thus there is the potential for such an article.
  • Special:Diff/1266198785 I removed "exceptional", because that is not the standard for GAs. Alternatively, we could remove mention of GAs, in which case we should probably also remove the GAs that are included in the list. Or we could remove the entire list, especially considering the rate at which articles on it are being demoted. But I have refrained from such bold edits.
  • Special:Diff/1266213635 The article being used as an example does not appear to entirely follow this. The first part of the sentence might have been OK, but it was basically redundant to what was just above.

Compulsive Brainstormer (talk) 22:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The mass-reverts seem to have been made without realising that your main proposal has already been discussed, twice, on this talk page. Nobody so far has raised any substantive objection. Perhaps you could leave it here for a few days just in case anyone wants to suggest alternatives or improvements. For clarity, I agree that the edits you have suggested are a great improvement. MichaelMaggs (talk) 23:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have some reservations re the first and third edit but don't have much time atm. Would appreciate it if you could hold off until next week when I'll comment further. No particular opinion on the others but suggest as per the above to wait a few days. Scribolt (talk) 11:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First point: yes, those are things not to include, and that's why they are listed to show the editor/reader what are things not to include in a plot summary. Second point: that's an introductory paragraph to the following sections, its actually normal style of writing to have such a preamble short paragraph leading into larger sections. Third point, its important to recognize how WP:NOT works here, given that is a core content policy (which NOTPLOT is a part of). Fifth point, while the aspect about being written in present tense is apparently wrong, as the article does use past tense for the flashback, the relevant point that the plot summary explains that there's this extended flashback, which is what the paragraph in WAF is trying to explain how to establish that a flashback is used. --Masem (t) 14:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On the first point, the way it's written sure doesn't sound like "this is what not to include". If anything, the opposite. Furthermore, the last item on that list is the plot, which definitely should be included, though that is covered below.
On the second point, I thought such a preamble was optional. In this case, the section title and See also link make clear what the overarching section is about. I also thought it was standard practice to try to avoid self-referential statements like "This section deals with".
On the third point, however it's stated, it seems excessive to effectively link to that policy twice in one sentence. But the main part of that edit was to fix the next sentence, which got ahead of itself.
On the fifth point, we could just remove the second part of that sentence. However, the previous sentence already states Works that incorporate non-linear storytelling elements, such as flashbacks (Citizen Kane) ... may require inclusion of out-of-universe language to describe how the work is presented to the reader or viewer. I'm not sure anything more is needed. Compulsive Brainstormer (talk) 16:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since the only one of Masem's points which I didn't have a good answer for concerned the intro, and Scribolt also indicated that was a point he had reservations about, how about this rewrite:

Wikipedia contains numerous articles on subjects related to fiction, including fictional worlds and elements therein. In order to adhere to Wikipedia's content policies, any such article should cite several reliable, independent secondary sources that specifically cover the subject in some detail. This establishes the subject's real-world notability, and also allows for a balanced article that is more than just a plot summary.

With such sources in hand, editors should consider: (a) what to write about the subject, and (b) how to best present that information. These questions are complementary and should be addressed simultaneously to create a well-written article or improve a preexisting one.

Compulsive Brainstormer (talk) 16:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re the first point. The wording and presentation could surely be improved, but I read that section in the context of articles about fiction beyond Book X or film Y. We have articles about notable characters, and articles that contrast fictional works and content (e.g. Beowulf and Middle-earth, which I chose somewhat at random and may or not be a good example). Content sourced/cited to the primary sources is not forbidden. What we should be getting across is that if narrative content of the type listed is "only" present in the primary source, then it's lacking in WEIGHT to mention it outside of the plot summary. Whether or not it's mentioned in the plot summary would be out of scope of this section as it comes down to whether or not it's particularly relevant to the story (for example, the protagonist's birthday in Midnights Children is indeed plot relevant). What we want to avoid, especially in character articles are long crufty sections describing fictional worlds / concepts without secondary source analysis. The current text at least lays this baseline, I might try a re-write based on what I wrote above.

Re the third point, I agree with Masem and don't believe it's excessive to link to both the NOT policy as well as a specific point within it. As well as reading better (at least touching in the prose as to why we don't want things to be just plot summaries) there are other points in the wider policy that are also applicable beyond the specific section that is hyperlinked in NOTPLOT. Scribolt (talk) 08:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you're looking at it that way, maybe delete the list and simply say Details found only in primary sources should not be included outside of the plot summary section or a section on characters. While fictional dates of birth or performance features are occasionally important, that is fairly rare, so mentioning those as details that might be included in a plot summary isn't helpful. 213.169.39.234 (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. This section is not solely about a plot summary, and listing common forms of primary soured information (mostly fancruft) that should not be typically included is helpful. Please stop re-instating your changes until consensus is reached on the talk page. If anyone feels my recent change makes things worse we can of course return to the status quo. Scribolt (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first two examples, at least, are things that usually should not be included at all, anywhere in an article, so mentioning them is misleading, especially if we talk about which sections they might be included in. Talking about secondary sources is also misleading in this context, as even something that happens to be mentioned in a secondary source does not automatically warrant inclusion. A secondary source might have a passing mention of such details, but that doesn't mean Wikipedia should include them. 213.169.39.234 (talk) 13:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how it is misleading as it now explicitly say that this is a list of the kind of primary sourced information which is not to be included in articles outside of the plot section. If anything listed here is covered in secondary sources (which you are correct to say they typically aren't), then the usual considerations of WEIGHT and DUE would need to be applied. I suggest you focus on getting your account unblocked, or if you are indeed a sock of a WMF banned user, you shouldn't be editing this or any other page in Wikipedia. Scribolt (talk) 15:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "if it's not in a secondary source, don't include it outside the plot section", that will inevitably give some readers the impression that it should be included in the plot section, or that it definitely should be included elsewhere if it is in a secondary source. In the fairly rare event that such points should be included, they might better fit into a Characters section if there is one, but noting that would make this even more cumbersome.
If not for me, this page would be even more of a jumbled, confusing mess than it currently is, as would a few other guideline pages. Things not being carefully checked is the reason that all of this happened. 213.169.39.234 (talk) 15:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I disagree. This is not about how to write a plot summary, it's about how to write an article about fiction. Being specific about what kinds of things should never appear anywhere if only present in primary sources provides greater benefit to the encyclopedia than the risk of some extraneous detail appearing in a plot summary of a book or film (which is covered elsewhere). Character articles are magnets for this kind of stuff. Scribolt (talk) 16:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed here, this page is more than just about plot summaries but any content related to fiction, making sure there is a strong distinction of what occurs within the fiction versus what is actual real world factors. We have had too many editors in the past treating fiction as real which hurts WP. We have a separate page on the specifics of writing a good plot summary. Masem (t) 17:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Being specific about what kinds of things should never appear anywhere if only present in primary sources. That's not what the wording in question does. 213.169.39.234 (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your quote of me is accurate, but I was incorrect in what I wrote. If only primary sourced, then these things (including the plot itself) should never appear outside of the plot summary. If there is secondary souring and other policy considerations are met, what the secondary sources have to say can be summarised in the article. Whether or not these content appears in the plot summary depends on the narrative and is covered elsewhere. The addtion I made reflects this. It's clear we disagree on this, so I will not respond further to you, and will see if anyone else has any opinions. Scribolt (talk) 18:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

information Note: Both Compulsive Brainstormer and 213.169.39.234 have been blocked as socks of Belteshazzar an LTA (see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Belteshazzar). Continue discussing you wish, but they will no longer be particpating (at least until they pull a new sock out the drawer). Jauerbackdude?/dude. 21:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]