Talk:Evangelion: 1.0 You Are (Not) Alone/Summary length (archive)

I feel that the original placeholder summary is too short; it was so to avoid spoilers while the film was in theaters and the DVD was yet to go on sale. Now the DVD has been out for some months so I expanded the summary to normal size. Folken seems to think this is far too much, but I feel that four paragraphs or so is fine, and the original one paragraph is not long enough. As opposed to doing what Folken is doing...just changing things and demanding that as a non-adminstrator he somehow has the authority to make them stick, I'd rather appeal to consensus from WikiProject Evangelion, etc. So do you guys feel that the revisions I made on October 6th, or the revisions that Folken made, are the better ones, both informative and still fitting inside standards? This isn't a formal nitpicking vote, we're just doing a consensus. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 23:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the longer version myself. I like detail. Hellbus (talk) 23:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

A quick note: WP:FILMPLOT specifies a length of between 400 to 700 words. The length of Hellbus's version is around 500, well within accepted limits. Buspar (talk) 08:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Please VVVV, don't try to sound as if I had reverted your whole version and restored the original (and too short) summary. I have removed 4 sentences, which isn't a big deal. Because as you'll see in the following part of my message, my decisions make sense are perfectly valid and justified, and don't just come out of the blue. But yours are not (yet). And it's certainly not enough not portray me as "someone who think he's an admin and can make his contribs stick".
About that, please try to remain civil and don't throw accusations that could backfire against you. You're the one making mean comments about me in your edit summaries. You are the one giving the impression that you want your edits to stick by rushing to the "revert" button without trying to back up your views. So please, forget about personal attacks (unless you want to have troubles with WP administration) and focus on the content.

• "Rei is confused how to react in such an emotional situation, to which Shinji suggests she start by smiling. Rei smiles for the first time.":

We're no longer in a plot summary. My view is that, as plot summaries should not cover every scene and every moment of a story, they should focus on what is important and relevant about the movie itself. In Rebuild's case, I think it means the differences with the original work.

As you can see, Rebuild can be (and has been) summed up as "a point-for-point adaptation of episodes 1 through 6". The original plot summary didn't go much further than that. What you've recently added expanded on the 2 pivotal points of the retelling that is Rebuild: the new Operation Yashima and the early Kaworu introduction. I have not modified these paragraph, as I agree they are essential (with "essential" taken literally: they're the essence of this alternative retelling of the Evangelion story).

However, I consider the "Rei-smile" scene trivia, and that it goes among that "every scene or moment..." category we should not cover. It is not essencial to the plot, and not essencial to the reader (otherwise, you'd better link to a full recap of eps 1 to 6). There are dozen of popular small scenes among fans that are or are not in Rebuild, and we're not going to list them all because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and because we should not cover every scene of a story. The Rei-smile is not an exception, if we accept it, we'll have to accept all the other scenes, and it will no longer be a plot summary.

That's why I removed these sentence. They felt disconnected from the rest of the summary, because instead of summing up an important scene without going into much details, the focus suddenly went on a very small scene, a trivia. And it didn't feel it needed to be even included.

But honestly, I didn't thought it would be such a big deal, I just thought it would shorten the section and make it more like a WP summary. You'll have to explain me why it seems to be of the utmost importance to you, to the point that you feel forced to ignore every rule of civility there is on WP.
Okay, not agreeing with me is a thing, but proving (instead of merely saying) these sentences are indeed essencial to the article to the point it is necessary to start a revert war, is another. So, I wait for your explanation.

• "The camera pans up from the smiling Rei and Shinji, to Earth's Moon in the sky... ...only to then zoom in on the Moon and cut to a new location on the barren lunar surface":

If we're making a "plot summary", then I don't see what cinematic devices (camera panning up, zooms...) would be doing here. Besides, I see what kind of effect you want to give with the 3 dots and the general impression of following camera movements (as if we were watching the movie). But this paragraph in the guideline sums it all:

The point of a summary is to condense a large amount of information into a short, accessible format. It is not to reproduce the experience of reading or watching the story, nor to cover every detail.

It is always tempting, in describing the plot of something, to attempt to recreate its emotional impact. This should be avoided. Wikipedia is not a substitute for the original. As emotionally moving as the end of Hamlet is, the final fight does not need to be described in exquisite detail that attempts to recreate every emotional beat of the scene. Our article should not try to be a replacement for actually reading the play.

I understand you want to recreate the suprise the viewers felt when they saw kaworu popping up, while they were logically thinking the movie had ended after the fight with Ramiel. That's why you described the camera movements, as if we, readers, were to feel the same thing.

But it is not the point of a plot summary on WP, and it is not the appropriate style for it. So no, this won't stay either.

• "The screen cuts to black with the message "to be continued"...":

Same as before, this is a plot summary, not a full script, nor an attempt at recreating the viewing of the movie.

• "and that he looks forward to meeting Shinji again ":

Kaworu never says "again", so I can't see why you keep adding that.Folken de Fanel (talk) 00:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Had you explained your objections at the beginning, I would have listened. Discussion is the proper method for working out disputes such as this, not starting an edit war. I've noticed that this isn't the first time you've taken this approach. It looks a bit like you think the article belongs to you. That being said, I took a closer look at your objections here and I've tried to make a compromise version of the summary. Your notes about Rei smiling and Kaworu not saying "again" are valid, but I feel that the camera panning up was important. I moved it slightly to make it look less like a cliffhanger. Hellbus (talk) 01:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The summary looks fine in its current form. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 01:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Hellbus, it's easy to accuse each other, so let's not waste our time with that. Article ownership is VVVVV's problem, you should leave it to him and not enter his game. You seem to be different from him, so I'm sure you can do better than that. In the end, considering that now you think my explanations are valid, you could have avoided a perfectly useless revert. That's why you shouldn't judge people too quickly.

As for the content, contrary to VVVVV, I've no problem in accepting what others have to bring. Concerning the camera panning up, I have now no problem with the formulation you came up with. Only that it feels disconnected to the rest of the section: nowhere had we talked about cinematic devices before, and it just pops up for the last paragraph. It feels awkward. But in a "summary style" pov, it remains acceptable.Folken de Fanel (talk) 01:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Hellbus and Willybr: your compromise position is great Hellbus (if you feel the other parts were overstretching, okay. Good that you felt the camera stuff should be retained). You are right, I should have put this to a formal Talk page discussion earlier, but we were doing it in such dribs and drabs and sporadically that it never "came to a head" before; you know, daily editing of a sentence or two vs. the large task of sitting down and voting: well the news of the official title for Rebuild 2 coming out prompted me to finally address the issue. Either way: we're discussing it now, yes we should have been discussing it earlier but we're making up for lost time now; lets make sure to bring all major issues up on Talk (that, and Folken was the only one making these changes so it was me vs him back and forth; I guess that's why I never put it to a vote). As for "taking ownership of articles": Folken when there are major issues I've put them to a vote on the WikiProject Eva page (what to do with N2 mine/bombs, capitalization NERV problems) as opposed to just doing them without group input : you never even bothered to join our work group and never join in our discussions when we're trying to compromise: please do so in the future. Your views might actually win. but you're just giving out orders and quoting a rule or two to back yourself up (on the contrary; Wikipedia is not paper). Please try to work with the rest of us instead of continuing this behavior. Exactly why this came to a head now (...btw, shouting "you've lost all civility of both god and men!" sounds like you're fuming at your computer; be calm) is because I finally had enough of that you've been changing articles and simply reverting things instead of ever discussing them with any of us. Why do *we* have to provide evidence for things to justify them staying? Who are you? You're another editor equal to me; why don't *you* provide "evidence" for us? For that matter, why does any of us be put in such a position (you *or* I)?: we're supposed to be working on this as a group effort and you haven't even tried to do that. This is what made me finally bring this to a vote. From now on, we're going to try to handle such revert edit arguments on all articles through consensus discussion on the Talk pages. Please participate. Now that that's out of the way: Hellbus and Willbyr; you guys like the current version? anyone else think its okay? are we sticking with this?--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 02:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

If you wanted this to be taken seriously, you should have had the decency to submit every single of your edits to a consensus decision before they were actually included in articles (which would have spared WP all these reverts of yours). The fact that you consider discussion only as a way of preventing your edits to be touched removes all credibility to your statement.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh give it a rest Folken: that's not how wikipedia works. We make edits and if people strongly disagree with them, anyone can change them, and if there is still disagreement, we talk about it on the discussion page. Which is what we've been doing. Folken: if you wish to be taken seriously, do actual work: wikipedia is not some "game" of logging on to criticize other people's edits. You've barely worked on any of this. Just....do you seriously think that EVERY single article edit on ALL of wikipedia needs to be discussed before it is made? You're just trying to throw red tape at me and it is not working: Folken I do not take you seriously, and you're just trying to game the system. As for everyone else: thanks I actually think Hellbus's version was pretty good; who still thinks there are changed to be made?----Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 03:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Well then, if anyone can change them, I don't see why you're always making tantrums when one of your edits is concerned. Please don't think that you're the perfect editor and that there's never anything to polish or rectify in your texts. Obviously your constant disregard of various style policies (particularly concerning POV) has to be corrected.
This is not "logging on to criticize other people's edits". This is the way WP works: edits get done, edits get undone. As it is said as a preambule to editing, "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it". It's not criticizing for the sake of criticizing, it is the core principle of Wikipedia: that no edit is necessarily perfect and will have to be changed at some point, no article is ever finished and in a fixed form. It's not a free and open encyclopedia for nothing. So yes, criticizing is needed on WP, and if you really can't accept the fact that none of your edits are unquestionable that they will be changed, then Wikipedia is not for you.
For the rest, I'm merely saying that there's no need of consensus to modify edits, as long as it consists in making them conform to the various basic rules of style and content. Advocating, as you did, consensus discussion for every minor correction (because you don't like your edits being changed) is as useless as asking for every edit to be consensus-discussed beforehand. I was just going further with the logic of your statements. However, I'm glad you don't like the idea either. So I will continue to correct your edits as I see fit and without asking your permission.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

"(noise)" - Folken. Beyond defending a wounded sense of wiki-addict-pride, does anyone here have anything else constructive to contribute to the discussion here?--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 15:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I would like to disagree with both the current version and the one that was shorter. It doesn't read like a plot summary. Description of camera pans, comparisons to the previous Eva, descriptions of what things look like, and so forth, should not be present, and quite likely moved elsewhere. This is a plot summary, not a description of the experience of an Eva fan watching the movie. Xenofan 29A (talk) 23:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not terribly thrilled with either version, or with the edit-warring of both sides. 1.0 is little more than a retelling of the episodes with minor variations. The summary should basically have 2 or 3 sentences describing the events of each episode's worth of content, a wikilink to the original episode for the full description, and then cover the differences like the Kaoru scene. Folken's version is too much like a general summary, and V5's version, while I like the more detailed description of the differences, also covers the old stuff too much. It needs to be entirely rewritten. --Gwern (contribs) 17:39 8 October 2008 (GMT)

well if you feel my version had problems, okay: but I strongly feel that it is obviously more than a straight remake of the original six episodes (like just a clip show or something) albeit it follows the plot very closely; the whole point of the paragraphs I added about Lilith and Kaworu, are that those are parts that were indeed different, and if something needs to be sacrificed it should be another part. I think simply wikilinking to the episode summaries would be a mistake. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 18:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I like the current plot summary Hellbus has put together. It's short enough to constitute a summary (4 paragraphs is modest compared to what some movies receive) while also conveying the content of the film to someone unfamiliar with the topic. Noting camera pans is an interesting and effective means of conveying the movie's presentation. Good work! Buspar (talk) 08:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes you see I wasn't going to bring this up but I do think mentioning that "the camera turns to the moon as if its going to close on that image...only to then zoom in on the moon and show a twist ending set on the Moon" is actually important; sort of like you have to mention for a Twilight Zone episode about "turns out they were on Earth all along, because in the last scene the camera slowly pans up and you see a signpost or the Statue of Liberty"........it has nothing to do with "listing the individual experience of watching the movie", it's indeed, part of the twist at the end. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 14:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed! The camera pan was clearly a plot device used by the director to set up the twist ending. It therefore falls under WP:FILMPLOT's include plot twists and a description of the ending and should be included per those style guidelines, especially given the split in consensus. Buspar (talk) 08:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The ending is that we see Kaworu on the moon, not that the camera pans. You need to learn to differenciate filmic devices and the plot. The plot is the story itself, filmic devices are how a director can convey the plot. If we do plot summaries then they should only be concerned with the plot. A camera pan is not a part of the plot. The new location and characters are the plot. Also, we can't talk about "twist" here. This is just a new scene in a new location. A twist would be that at the end, Rei is revealed to be the true form of Ramiel and then kills Shinji. Besides, these sentences just don't fit with the overall style, and make the whole thing poorly written.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Camera work is not part of the plot, thus it has nothing to do in a plot summary. Camera works are filmic devices aimed at creating specific experiences to the viewers, something that is not related to the plot.
Since plot summaries on WP are not meant to "reproduce the experience of reading or watching the story", then camera works that are only used to create specific viewing experiences have nothing to do here.

And the comments of those in favor of keeping these camera works are the best proof of what I'm saying. How something that is qualified as "conveying the movie's presentation" could not be included in "the experience of reading or watching the story" that should not be part of plot summaries ? The plot in Eva 1.0 is not that the camera pans upward, it's that the final scene happens somewhere else.

As for what VVVVV said, no, it's not a part of the "twist". The final scene is on a different location, we say it, period.
There should not be any notion of "twist" in plot summaries. These are filmic devices, which we cannot include in summaries. We're not supposed to mimic effects of surprise or twists in the summaries, we just state what has to be stated.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it really necessary for you to be so confrontational about everything? Also, I find it rather odd (and a bit irritating) that after you stated that you didn't have a problem with how the statement about panning up was worded, you've gone back to removing it any time someone adds it back in. Hellbus (talk) 21:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I have opinions different that yours that I am merely stating and backing up using WP guidelines. You have a problem with that ?

I said the statement sounded better than before, never that I wholeheartedly agreed that mentionning cinematic devices was crucial to the plot summary. It was a way of calming things down a bit, to initiate the discussion, but seeing how more and more people are opposed to it, I just don't see the point to maintain it as it obviously goes against the basic rules of style about plot summaries. I didn't even completely erased it, as my new version tried to acknowledge that there's a change of focus (I didn't really want to include something like that, but even you seem to think the text is just OK without it). But going against guidelines with just "I like it" is not strong enough.Folken de Fanel (talk) 23:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, you may want to remember another guideline: if the rules get in the way, ignore them. This rather long-winded discussion suggests an excessive adherence to the letter of the law. Hellbus (talk) 01:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

What Ignore All Rules means.Folken de Fanel (talk)

I actually did read that, believe it or not. The reason I brought it up is because you keep harping on about rules, and the way you do it is making it difficult for me to assume good faith. You're not an administrator, so quit ordering people around. Hellbus (talk) 12:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not ordering people around. I'm expressing an opinion different than yours, different on many aspects including that what I'm saying is backed up by basic rules and guidelines of style, which is just not your case. Which puts our opinions on very different levels, and makes it very difficult for you to succeed in imposing your views when they have absolutely nothing to support them, particularly when other people have already expressed negative comments about versions of the summary that ignores the guidelines. Just saying "because I like it" and throwing IAR as a trump card, thus slowing down the actual improvement of the article just for the pleasure of having your own way with Eva articles, is not the right way to act on WP.

I agree that the way things have turned out might not please you, but in fact it is perfectly normal. However, that you start to reproach me of preventing you to have your own way in articles, just doesn't make sense. And that in your frustration, you're accusing me of acting like an admin, is bringing your closer to personal attacks, so you shouldn't do that. Please don't lose your temper just because you realize you can't do just whatever you want on WP and that you're not the only editor.

You can't blame me for your own absence of convincing justifications. You want to maintain something that others don't want, and according to WP standards, that can't stay, then logically the burden of evidence is upon you.Folken de Fanel (talk) 14:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Folken, you're just quoting rules out of context for your own benefit trying to tie us up in loopholes, while not actually trying to do real work or discuss things. Also...there is a principle in group dynamics that abusive people can't just assert their demands over anyone; they intentionally seek out people who will be cowed by their displays: Folken I now and for the forseeable future consider pretty much any edit you make to be just you trying to stoke your own ego at our expense; but be aware that we're not going to take your gaming the system attempts seriously. If you seriously build up your own sense of pride by nitpicking articles on wikipedia of all things, do it on the DragonBallZ articles or whatever; you aren't going to win this one. Just walk away. We, meanwhile, are not here to stoke our own egos etc. and I'm not making speeches: quite simply, we're trying to write a good article on a movie we all happen to like. If someone can do a better job than I myself can, I'd honestly rather that they did it than me, so we could all enjoy it. I openly question, based on observation, if you actually are truly concerned about any subject in and of itself at all on here; if this had been...a movie about old Flash Gordon serials from the 30's, which you had never seen yourself, I'm convinced you'd pursue it with the same fervor. Becase you don't seem to be concerned with "conveying information", so much as "trying to bend other people into submitting to my will, in order to inflate my sense of pride, by hiding behind rules and procedure to my benefit". If you aren't going to do something constructive, go away. Find one of the other wikiprojects on some other anime series where you can more easily bully your fellow editors around. You'd have more fun doing it, probably make yourself important berating Naruto fans who don't get their wiki-templates right. As for here, work together with the group and constructively contribute something, because we aren't daunted by your aggressive stance. Run along and find some other folks who you can push around, you'll find none here. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 06:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Modifying others' edits is real work and an integral part of the aim of Wikipedia. Implying that every edit is just perfect and doesn't need anyone to correct it, or even to nitpick about it, is just stupid. You're utterly lacking autocriticism and sense of humility.

So, why are you still trying to "defend a wounded sense of wiki-addict-pride", while you claimed we needed something else, more relevant to the discussion ? I still have to see anything from you that would be, one way or another, related to the writing of the plot summary. I, on the contrary, have discussed everything we could on the subject, I have provided rules that are perfectly in-context (what could be more in-context to plot summaries than a guideline about plot summaries ?). All you could answer to that were incoherent statements about how your personal tastes could not be challenged by anyone on Earth.

VVVVV, the truth is, your edits are so bad and unadapted to the WP mindset, that any of them is likely to be reverted on sight, by just anyone. You don't know a damn thing about "group dynamics" because you keep trying to impose edits that no one wants. As I've said, I never saw you try to discuss anything before writing in articles, which would have been positive in a way, since it would have prevented you to submit things that would automatically be reverted. So don't try to talk about "group dynamics", moreover when your just using it as a pretense to hide your own, personal vendetta. The only thing you're doing here is imposing your tastes without giving a damn about Wikipedia, you're just here to glorify yourself. You're not writing for Wikipedia, your using WP as a tool to promote yourself. And that you're targetting me so that you can pretend not hearing criticism from other people, is ridiculous. Yes, because other contributors have already questionned the form of your edits, you're just trying to divert attention from this criticism with your rants.

So don't even dare to talk about a "we" here, because all this is only about you. You've got no one with you. And don't even try to frighten me with your threats, I will keep editing as I see fit and I won't care about your ego. You won't force me out of articles. Don't act as if you were the owner of articles and could decide who could write or not.

You just keep ranting about how your edits are sacred, holy, and how you're infuriated that anyone dared to touch them. You're just getting boring. I won't waste my time reminding you of all the principles of WP (including non-ownership of article) since you're determined not to listen and to have your own way here. Obviously, the task of convincing you that you're not a god is too great for me. Thus I will ignore your ravings and continue doing what is right without giving a damn about your pride issues.

On a final note, you're now boreline agressive and insulting. If you don't stop now, you will get into the troubles you seem to be desperately seeking.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello pot, meet kettle. Hellbus (talk) 12:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm focused on the "Spirit of the Law", not the "Letter of the Law". If you are confused, I was referring to that you are just trying to push us around due to wounded pride. No, it's not that "people will edit contributions"; you're just nitpicking rules. Nonetheless, we should stop discussing this as it implies that we are still debating it; I already think Hellbus did a better compromise, and the issue has been raised, so now I'm going to step back and see what he and others do, letting them decide it --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 14:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

When you talk about "push around due to wounded pride", I'm sure you're refering to when you said to me "do it on the DragonBallZ articles or whatever; you aren't going to win this one. Just walk away. [...] go away. Find one of the other wikiprojects on some other anime series " ? I can't help laughing when I see someone, who wrote a whole paragraph commanding me to "go away" every two words, complaining afterwards that I would be "pushing people around"...Folken de Fanel (talk) 14:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)