Talk:The Americans season 5

Inconsequential Martha

Unless significant opposition is met, I will be removing Wright/Hanson from the Character list. The appearance is hardly noteworthy to the section given its arcane nature. If anything, the inclusion is premature (on Wikipedia?! Shocking, I know). We need to be in a "wait-see" mindset. If the appearance 'must be noted, it belongs as an afterthought in the Production section, or better yet, a Casting subsection. However, seeing as though these Americans articles are so grossly underdeveloped, I don't see that coming to fruition any time soon. LLArrow (talk) 03:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Of course her appearance should be noted. She's a notable character who was a series regular for three seasons. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting the appearance shouldn't be included in the article, just not in the Cast and Character section. LLArrow (talk) 08:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring

@LLArrow: In reference to this edit, no, the summary is not "beyond fine":

• It's not fine because "gotten", "intel", and "crop op" are overly informal as per WP:TONE
• In the show, the operation relating to the midges is never referred to as a "crop op"
• In the original version of the summary, some characters are listed by their last names while some are listed by their first, which is a problem because it is inconsistent. In previous episode summaries, "Beeman" is referred to as "Stan".
• The original version refers to Paige's "techniques"; she was only ever taught one technique, not many.
• As previously implied, this entire sentence is nonsensical: Morozov gives Philip and Elizabeth means to disagree. Who is Morozov and what means is he (?) giving them to disagree... about what?
• As previously stated, it's not clear the leads Stan and Dennis were pursuing are dead ends... that's an assumption. Subsequent edits provide a more factual account of what is shown to the audience.
• As previously stated, we aren't told or shown Oleg's activities in this episode are his first day on the job. It might simply be his first day visiting a supermarket or even that supermarket.
• Don't even get me started on how awkward and overblown this section is: and is then met with his means of destruction, an incriminating recording, having refused to meet with Stan's contact.
• Apart from the awkward wording of this phrase: indoctrinating her to their ideals (you do not "indoctrinate someone to X", you simply "indoctrinate" them, period full stop), there's no proof Philip and Elizabeth's sharing of certain facets of their latest assignment is actually "indoctrinating" Paige.
• You don't get to reinstate a summary that multiple people have made revisions to just because you originated it: that's clearly a case of WP:OWN.

Consensus is (so far) that the summary is not fine... if it were "fine", no one would be editing it.

And in follow up, no, my changes are not based on opinion... they're based on proper English, clarity, fact, and Wikipedia guidelines. For instance, with respect to your comments regarding this later edit:

• Again, "intel" is not a formal term. The word is "intelligence."
• Matthew express concern is not only grammatically incorrect, it also begs the question: what is he expressing concern about? which my edit answers: Matthew presses her about her emotional state.
• Martha appears and the camera spends a long time lingering on her so that the audience realizes it is someone we know. It should be mentioned, especially coupled with the "Special Appearance" credit the actor received.
• Similar to your flawed phrasing on "met with his means of destruction" above, her sympathy would lie with mother Russia is hugely problematic: "mother Russia" is a colloquialism and it is "her sympathIES" plural. It's "in the hope" or "in the hopes, " not "with the hope." The verb tense is also wrong. The version I wrote addresses the fact they want to let her in on their double lives to reduce her anxiety and also help her understand why they're so committed to their work.
• And finally, the agent who approaches Stan is definitively NOT sent by Stan because we are shown very clearly Stan does not want to have anything to do with blackmailing Oleg and that he strongly disapproves of the CIA taking that tactic.

So in closing, please stop reverting changes that are improving, clarifying, and fixing the grammar of existing summaries. —;Joeyconnick (talk) 23:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not ungrateful for this lovely detailed explanation of actions. However, I disagree. Firstly, I'm changing the subject head to more accurately reflect the actions that have taken place on this article. Secondly, while some of your grievances are valid, others are not. Your spelling and grammar qualms can be chalked up to my getting little sleep of late. However, you're also viewing my writing through your eyes, not reaching the intended takeaway.

• It's not fine because "gotten", "intel", and "crop op" are overly informal as per WP:TONE I don't agree that those terms are "informal".
• In the original version of the summary, some characters are listed by their last names while some are listed by their first, which is a problem because it is inconsistent. In previous episode summaries, "Beeman" is referred to as "Stan". Just because things have been done incorrectly for the majority of history does not make things right.
• The original version refers to Paige's "techniques"; she was only ever taught one technique, not many. Who are we to say that she wasn't employing multiple techniques to thwart Matthew's suspicion?. It's definitely not an egregious perspective.
• As previously implied, this entire sentence is nonsensical: Morozov gives Philip and Elizabeth means to disagree. Who is Morozov and what means is he (?) giving them to disagree... about what? That's nonsensical?! These reviews are written for people that are familiar with the show, and the characters within. If some ignorant bloke dosen't know who character is, that dosen't mean the privy forget about them. Honestly. I'm beside myself with this response. And if you recall, I had the proper wordage previously in place: Morozov gives Philip and Elizabeth means to split philosophical hairs. Because that's exactly what he did.
• As previously stated, it's not clear the leads Stan and Dennis were pursuing are dead ends... that's an assumption. Subsequent edits provide a more factual account of what is shown to the audience. I agree, which is why I left that sentence alone, in my most recent revision.
• As previously stated, we aren't told or shown Oleg's activities in this episode are his first day on the job. It might simply be his first day visiting a supermarket or even that supermarket. This I agree with.
• Don't even get me started on how awkward and overblown this section is Opinion, no real argument as to why it was changed, other than personal dislike.
• (you do not "indoctrinate someone to X", you simply "indoctrinate" them, period full stop), there's no proof Philip and Elizabeth's sharing of certain facets of their latest assignment is actually "indoctrinating" Paige. This is your opinion of indoctrination. Not fact.
• You don't get to reinstate a summary that multiple people have made revisions to just because you originated it: that's clearly a case of WP:OWN. Consensus is (so far) that the summary is not fine... if it were "fine", no one would be editing it. This doesn't sound like an actual rule or guideline being broken, but just anger that an editor isn't rolling over to your whim and will. Also it shows your lack of knowledge of actual guideline given that you think consensus can be had with two editors (one being an IP, possible sockpuppetry at work) aligning against one.
• Again, "intel" is not a formal term. The word is "intelligence." Again, only an idiot wouldn't understand the word "intel". I have seen the word used in a dozen other article, in multiple fashions.
• Martha appears and the camera spends a long time lingering on her so that the audience realizes it is someone we know. It should be mentioned, especially coupled with the "Special Appearance" credit the actor received. I would agree if there was any substance to her appearance. There is not. It was obviously placed in the episode as an "easter egg" for fans. A cameo. A time that writers get to wink at the audience, and reward their loyalty. It ruins the easter egg quality by mentioning it here for would-be viewers, and I will petition strongly to have it omitted.
• "mother Russia" is a colloquialism and it is "her sympathIES" plural. Since when has mentioning colloquialisms been outlawed. Especially when it's directly related to the series' subject matter. Completely head scratching. The Jennings don't wish for multiple sympathies from their daughter, just one.
• the agent who approaches Stan is definitively NOT sent by Stan because we are shown very clearly Stan does not want to have anything to do with blackmailing Oleg and that he strongly disapproves of the CIA taking that tactic. The agent blackmailing Oleg is the same agent with ties to Stan. Playing both sides of the coin.

Honestly this should have been done after the first revert. LLArrow (talk) 00:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I completely agree with Joeyconnick here. The summaries were written with several euphemisms, colloquialisms and idioms that should not be used on Wikipedia (see WP:WORDS and WP:TONE). Summaries should be written as straight-forward as possible, not using overly-flowery language. The changes that were made were completely valid and are improvements to what was previously written. Drovethrughosts (talk) 15:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Fun fact: The term "overly-flowery" was first coined in the late 1800s, by derelicts in a small village in Westchester, England, who could not understand the language and wordage used in the official declarations made by Queen Victoria. The more you know... LLArrow (talk) 18:19, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

"Lotus 1-2-3" Episode 5 Season 5

Ben and Diedre aren't previously mentioned. JuanTamad (talk) 13:04, 18 April 2018 (UTC)