User talk:Just Another Cringy Username/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

IP?

I just noticed an anonymous user has been going after you lately. I'm highly curious if this is an associated with a known LTA; we can report the latest IP (166.150.42.214) as part of that LTA farm. Jalen Folf (talk) 22:49, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! I didn't even notice. An IP reverted one of my last PROD's, but I had no idea I was being targeted. What have they been doing? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 01:02, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly why they're going through your contribs to revert some of your edits, nor would I see why they would claim your WP:BOLD edits were "Qworty", so I'm clueless here as well (see Special:Contributions/166.150.42.214). From what I see, your edits are just fine. Jalen Folf (talk) 05:34, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I think I know. It's revenge for having gotten the List of Passions Characters article deleted. That IP's first reversion was to remove the PROD for that article w/ no real justification other than "inaccurate." I took it to AfD and the article got deleted anyway, mainly because all the "keep" votes were based on ILIKEIT, PPOV, and PLEASEDONT.

Basically, I think I stepped on some fanboy's toes and now they're off on a quest. So yes, I think these are revenge edits and I would like to take action against this IP. Can we restore my edits that they reverted and/or get them blocked? What's the process for this? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 06:41, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting all the disruptive edits. I was not looking forward to slogging through that. Now, where's the proper place to report this disruptive IP? Should I use the noticeboard for incidents or the one for Intervention Against Vandalism? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 16:53, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

•  Blocked x 2 weeks for hounding/harassment. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:43, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Deletion Sorting for webcomics

Hello, I just noticed No Need for Bushido was deleted through a Deletion discussion. I was sad to miss the discussion because it wasn't listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Webcomics. If I'm missing out on other webcomics deletion discussions, I would like to know. I'm sure the No Need for Bushido situation was fine; I've read the webcomic but a cursory search indeed doesn't bring much up, but I want to make sure I don't miss out on future deletions. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:55, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Assistance

Hello! I read your summary at Dispute resolution and was so impressed with your ability to gel things down that I am wondering if I could get you to do the same on an article I am currently working on. I write almost exclusively on religion, and usually re-do articles that are not well sourced or have outdated sources, and so are often not neutral and not representative of current scholarship. I started doing this on History of Christianity when I noted there were whole sections with no citations at all, and that entire topics had been left out. (Would you write a history of Christianity that didn't even mention the Albigensian crusade or the witch trials?) My problem is, this is 2000 years of history with lots of significant topics, and even though I am trying to limit each one to one to four paragraphs, the article is huge. I know I tend to use four words where one would do and often have to go back and edit myself, but I plod along at it, while you seem really gifted and good at it. I am not finished with input yet, but I am up to the late modern era, so I am close. Another editor's input would be really welcome. This article is too long to ever take GA, but I like to have that same quality even so. Your input would make that difference. Not flattery, just something I genuinely think about your skills. Thanx for your work at DR as well! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:32, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! I think I love you! Ha ha!! You totally rock. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:35, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Aw, shucks. You're making me blush.

One easy way to condense this might be to eliminate the sections on the evolution of the Bible and art and concentrate on the people. Like all religions, Christianity was a social movement, which means people. Also, you're writing a basic history, and history is a human story. I'll continue looking through it and copy edit anything that leaps out, but you've got a really solid article here: well-sourced and much more well-written than you think it is. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Bless you kind and helpful person! I would not mind eliminating those sections, your argument has merit, but leaving the Bible out of the history of Christianity might be seen as a bit radical by others - leaving out art probably wouldn't be. We could just do it and see what fireworks go off! :-) Thank you for the compliment too. It's likely to be the only one I get. I've been revising for over two months now so it better be better or I am due to jump off a bridge!! (A very small low bridge...) Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I removed art. Could not bring myself to remove Bible. I shudder! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:48, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

That's fine. I think you're right about it being important as the founding text of the religion. I can try to pare it down somewhat. Anything else you'd like me to look at while I'm there? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 22:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Look at everything! Look at anything over 4 paragraphs! No - look at everything! I've been obsessing over this, and I really need to get back to the actual research and writing. I have 4 sections that need adding to Early modern and one that is there but still needs redoing, and late modern has not a word on imperialism! If I think you are working on focusing each section on its main points, making this as concise as possible, then I will not worry and I'll be able to focus on what I need to do. For some of this, the main point is that scholars are divided, but sometimes the main point can be neatly gelled down into a complex sentence. You already made some good changes, so if you have any doubts about content, just ask - or check the source - but I want you to use your special insight, look the whole thing over for what seems to ramble or go off topic, and edit away. If I have a problem or think you are in error, I will tell you. When I wrote for my school paper in the wayback, I came to realize that good editors make even mediocre writers look good. You are worth your weight in gold to me. You do whatever you can stand as long as you can stand it, and I will be grateful. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I've done through the beginning of Late Antiquity, just after Constantine. TBH, this article is so well-sourced and thorough I hesitate to cut too much! You should really submit this for Featured status.

Looking farther ahead, I plan to cut down the section on interaction w/ Islam and the development of the Orthodox Church. The different sections on the various caliphates and the sections on individual orthodox countries (Romania, Hungary) seem a bit too granular for a general overview of an article. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 06:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

May I say WOW! Just WOW! You are amazing. It is phenomenal! I replaced one sentence - one - out of everything you cut. That's it! It all seems so important to me, yet when I read your edited version, it seems as though all the main points are there in a balanced manner - and it reads better! I am so impressed I can hardly restrain myself! I am just - wow - I am genuinely overcome. I edited some on the caliphates and countries - I am big on putting all the details into notes. :-) But you go ahead. Work your magic. I am so glad we met and that you turned out to be such a nice person! Thank you again. I can hardly say it enough. Thank you.

I would take it to at least a GA if I didn't think it was just too long for any reviewer to want to mess with. Even with your edits, it will be long, as I am having to add to content in the modern eras. There is so much to say, but I am trying to focus on the significant - while still leaving in some of the interesting "human" and interesting stuff. If I don't get edited out... Hah! If I do, so be it! You rock. I love this. Thank you again. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

You absolutely take my breath away. I had to add back Niceae, the first and second ecumenical councils, and I'm a bit concerned over the lack of discussion of the laws in State religion, but unless there is push back - which there probably will be eventually - it actually says all it needs to say. It's really quite amazing. I keep laughing out loud. You astound me. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:44, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Just remember when you want to add something back, this is meant to be a general overview. It's a broad subject, so don't let yourself get drawn into rabbit holes. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 05:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I know my edits are getting bolder, but I'm still doing my best to do justice to the subject. And yes, I cut the individual sections detailing the growth of the Church in individual countries. The main part of that section is an excellent overview and you really don't need to get so granular as to go into the Church's growth in Romania, Hungary, Russia, etc. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 06:15, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I accept your total ruthlessness as an overall good, :-) Mostly I am thrilled to death, so don't take it personally when I feel compelled to add something back. I promise to avoid rabbit holes. However, a lack of familiarity with the topic does leave me having to put back some content out of necessity. The omission of the council of Nicaea for example; it has to be there. I had to put back policy on the Jews in the fourth century as well, as it was highly significant in its time and becomes significant again in the Middle Ages, which btw, will also need to be added back into Political centralization through persecution. Right now the part about how the good went away and they became persecuted is just gone. It makes no sense, and that whole section reads as choppy and a bit incoherent. You refer to the monks reforming the world and the explanation that this was one of the changes in thinking that reform created is gone now too. So that sentence makes no sense either. I will fix it tomorrow as it is 1:30 in the AM here and I am too tired to think anymore tonight. Adding some back doesn't mean I don't love what you have done. It is truly great and extremely helpful. I can't say thank you enough. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:43, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm blushing!

Looking ahead, honestly, all I would cut would be the subsections under Christianization and Colonization of the Americas. Again, individual country summaries are not necessary for a broad overview article like this one. Other than that, I think I'm done for now.

And you really do need to submit this for GA review. It deserves far better than C class. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 06:59, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you and thank you. You did what I knew needed doing and could not bring myself to do - ruthlessly cut unnecessary material. I have more topics to add in the modern sections, but I promise I will do my best to honor your style and all the work you have done. It is an invaluable contribution to the quality of the encyclopedia. I hope we remain friends from now on. I may call on you again one day! Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello! I know you thought me calling on you again wouldn't happen this quickly, but I wanted to see if you have time to take a look at the Protestant Reformation section: [[1]] Every time I look at it I want to add things ... :-) I think everything else is done. Just your last magic touch if you can. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:32, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

If you want me to cut it down, I will, but I think it stands up in its present form. Perhaps your additions would fit better in the articles which deal specifically with Protestantism rather than the general "History of the Church." Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 21:22, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Just Another Cringy Username I bow to your superior knowledge of the power of deletion. I will add no more, you are no doubt right. Thank you again. I hope it's okay if I keep you my list of friends. Hopefully you won't hear from me again for awhile! :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:33, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Barnstar delivery

		The Editor's Barnstar
		To quote this barnstar's description: "Sometimes, expert text removal is the most effective editing." Well deserved for all your clean-up work, but especially recently on History of Christianity with Jenhawk777. -- asilvering (talk) 08:01, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I was going to do this! Honestly! Cannot say enough how much this is deserved. To be able to ask another for help and have them not only show up but do such a fantastic job is a great gift and deserves all the kudos we can give. Thank you again JACU and thank you asilvering. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:43, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Re: Removal of plot info at Elaine Marley

Please don't do stuff like this, it borders on the disruptive and almost led to the article being delisted. Furthermore, it was done under an incorrect rationale. The references cited the game, not Wikipedia. Furthermore the other messages here describing similar things being done to other articles are troubling. Please be aware plot content doesn't require a citation, so deleting it for being uncited is flat-out wrong. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:59, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Laura Roslin

Hi there! I noticed your appropriate, good faith BLAR of Laura Roslin. I've restored it with a brand new draft that resolves the issues you raised. It's no longer in-universe and relies almost exclusively on several secondary sources, rather than Wikipedia. I just wanted to inform you so you might avoid worry about the restore. All the best —siroχo 09:33, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

@Siroxo This looks great! I see scholarly analysis and proper sourcing, as every good WP article should have. If you're interested, you might try and do something w/ Elaine Marley. I've been arguing w/ the fanboys over there about the amount of cruft, particularly in the plot sections. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 17:04, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Deprodding of Judas (manga)

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Judas (manga), which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Link20XX (talk) 01:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Ugly Betty

I saw what you were doing while looking through the Teahouse archives.

I admit to being guilty of contributing to overly detailed plot descriptions for that show. Not adding to them so much as correcting errors.

I have long considered working to get rid of those long descriptions, maybe finding another web site where they would be appropriate.

Your question is over a year old but I'm glad you're working to improve the situation.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:31, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Sue Grafton/Kinsey Millhone

I am disappointed that you removed the standalone Kinsey Millhone page and incorporated only a small portion in the Sue Grafton page. I have put a link to the last or one of the last Kinsey Millhone pages taken from Web Archive and put it in the Sue Grafton talk page. RSLitman (talk) 18:08, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

@RSLitman: You're not the first to say this and I'll tell you the same I told them. Per WP:WAF, fictional elements such as characters do not merit their own standalone articles unless real-world notability can be established. If you can find secondary sourced discussion of Kinsey's impact in the real world sufficient to meet notability requirements, you can attempt to resurrect the article. Otherwise, that article is merely an in-universe fictography and as such does not belong on WP. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 21:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

That is a gross distortion of applicable policy.Nothing in actual policy states that "in-universe" content should not be used in articles on notable fictional characters. A simple check of Google Scholar shows far more than enough secondary sourcing to establish notability. Your peculiar and disproportionate interest in removing content related to the work of female writers is disconcerting. 104.226.30.18 (talk) 15:38, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

So many people keep saying this and yet no one wants to take the trouble of adding them to the article. So much easier to "revert and run," isn't it? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 17:43, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

DYK for The Serrano Legacy

On 23 October 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Serrano Legacy, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the book series The Serrano Legacy by Elizabeth Moon features protagonists that are daughters or aunts? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Serrano Legacy. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, The Serrano Legacy), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—Kusma (talk) 00:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

George Griffith at WP:FAC

Hi! George Griffith is at WP:FAC, see WP:Featured article candidates/George Griffith/archive1, and I figured this might be of interest to you based on your participation at WP:Articles for deletion/George Griffith. If you are interested in weighing in on the FAC, your input would be appreciated. TompaDompa (talk) 08:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

When I nominated this article, it was a skimpy, badly sourced stub. Thanks to your hard work, it has qualified for GA status and I would support its being featured. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 04:33, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Invitation

Hello Just Another Cringy Username, we need experienced volunteers.

• New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision (if it looks daunting, don't worry, it basically boils down to checking CSD, notability, and title). If this looks like something that you can do, please consider joining us.
• If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions. You can apply for the user-right HERE.
• If you have questions, please feel free to drop a message at the reviewer's discussion board.
• Cheers, and hope to see you around.

Sent by NPP Coordination using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

==Merry Christmas!

~~~ Merry Christmas! ~~~
Joyeux Noël! ~ Buon Natale! ~ Vrolijk Kerstfeest! ~ Frohe Weihnachten!
¡Feliz Navidad! ~ Feliz Natal! ~ Καλά Χριστούγεννα! ~ Hyvää Joulua!
God Jul! ~ Glædelig Jul! ~ Linksmų Kalėdų! ~ Priecīgus Ziemassvētkus!
Häid Jõule! ~ Wesołych Świąt! ~ Boldog Karácsonyt! ~ Veselé Vánoce!
Veselé Vianoce! ~ Crăciun Fericit! ~ Sretan Božić! ~ С Рождеством!
শুভ বড়দিন! ~ 圣诞节快乐！~ メリークリスマス！~ 메리 크리스마스!
สุขสันต์วันคริสต์มาส! ~ Selamat Hari Natal! ~ Giáng sinh an lành!
Весела Коледа! ~ Meri Kirihimete!

Hello, Just Another Cringy Username! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:41, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove and leave other users this message by adding {{subst:Multi-language Season's Greetings}}

==

Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:41, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Oversimplification

Hi there,

Your edit on Hunger Games Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes, while in good faith, oversimplified the plot TOO MUCH. The plot is already within the word count, so I don't see the point of your edits. HiGuys69420 (talk) 14:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Per MOS:FILMPLOT, "Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words." This one's hanging right around the 700 maximum for a film which is only slightly longer than average and for which the first half is mostly character development. TBH most of the first half can be summarized as "Snow helps Lucy Gray win the Games" without going into all that detail about who died when and how he helped her. The stories are more character-driven than plot-driven anyway.

Per WP:PLOTSUMMARIZE, "While longer descriptions may appear to provide more information, a concise summary may be more informative if it highlights the most important plot elements." The same section also contains several good reasons for keeping plot summaries short. WP:PLOTSUMNOT offers, "The point of a summary is not to reproduce the experience—it's to explain the story." I feel my shorter plot summary is adequate to explain the story. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 21:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Still, it is TOO SHORT. You might want to make it short while including important details: ex: how Snow helped Lucy Gray HiGuys69420 (talk) 21:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Why is that important? He helped her win the Games. The mechanics of how he helped her have no bearing on the story at large.

If it's adequate to explain the story, it's not too short. I think 500 words would be plenty to explain what's really a simple plot. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 21:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

ok but u have to include the fact that he cheated in order to do so, which is important as that's what Dean Highbottom catches him for HiGuys69420 (talk) 22:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Plus you also omitted some character details out such as Sejanus going into the arena to mourn for his tribute, or more details with Dr. Gaul as simply including her at the end confuses readers without any introduction. HiGuys69420 (talk) 23:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I did: "Later, Dean Casca Highbottom accuses Snow of cheating, sentencing him to twenty years' Peacekeeper service."

As for those character details, what purpose do they serve in the plot? How do they move the plot forward? Plot summaries are necessarily incomplete. We are not trying to recreate the experience of reading the book.

I have restored my shortened summary. Please read WP:PLOTSUMNOT and WP:PLOTSUMMARIZE and if you still think it's too short, let's continue this discussion on the talk page of the article where others can join in. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 20:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Alrighty I added some more info to clarify certain plot points HiGuys69420 (talk) 21:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Looks good! Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 23:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Roger Zelazny article redirects

Hi @Just Another Cringy Username: I see your turning several Zelanzy book articles into redirects. You do know that Zelanzy is major American science-fiction and fantasy author. His name is instantly recognizable to certain section of society on a very large scale, so is eminently notable. I can't see why your reverting them. These are long established articles, more than a decade old is most cases. I wouldn't do any more. Your not an NPP/AFC reviewer and redirects are clearly wrongly done. scope_creep^Talk 15:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@Just Another Cringy Username: I see you reverted this to a redirect: Gideon Planish when I reviewed the article as part of the WP:NPP. You know Sinclair Lewis is a nobel laurete in literature. Don't redirect anything from this point forward. This is a well established article. It is just unfortunate that most wikipedians on writing shit articles about celebrities, sportsman, actors and other kitsch junk that the real essence of mankind, particularly the great writers are always ignored. You should read Main Street by Lewis. It is finely written. scope_creep^Talk 15:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@Just Another Cringy Username: In saying that, your redirects seem to have led to improvements in these articles. The first time in some for them since they were created, in others more than 10 years since they were created. I think its done the business quite well. scope_creep^Talk 17:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I get a lot of flack for my shenanigans, but as you say, sometimes it's the only way to get substandard articles the attention they need. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 20:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I've also just come across a bunch of articles on books that you previously BLARed. I've marked most of them as reviewed because they clearly pass WP:NBOOK (there are plenty of offline reviews on newspaper.com). Please don't redirect articles just because you aren't happy with their current state. See WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. Thanks. C F A 💬 19:53, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

IMO fixing the problem often involves BLAR. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 06:05, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

How does redirecting notable articles "fix the problem"? Clean it up yourself or leave it for someone else. C F A 💬 14:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

If it's WP:PLOTONLY, it's not notable. If there's only one source, it's not notable. If the sources aren't reliable, it's not notable.

This idea that "existence confers notability" is far too prevalent on WP. People are all too quick to revert unsourced material or restore BLAR's while conveniently forgetting their WP:BURDEN or waving WP:NODEADLINE in my face. NODEADLINE has become an excuse to kick the can down the road and I just can't get on board with that. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 21:36, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

No, that is not how notability works. WP:NEXIST, a guideline, not an essay, says: Notability requires only that suitable independent, reliable sources exist in the real world; it does not require their immediate presence or citation in an article.. The state of an article does not determine notability. These articles that you have redirected all have plenty of reviews in reliable sources, available both online and in newspaper archives. You didn't do a proper WP:BEFORE before BLARing them. Plot summaries do not need citations. Please consider taking these articles to AfD (if you believe they aren't notable) instead of unilaterally redirecting them because you don't want to fix them. C F A 💬 23:58, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm well aware that plot summaries don't need citations. But when the "article" consists of nothing but a retelling of the story with no other information or even the merest attempt at showing notability, that is ripe for redirection. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 17:38, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

No, it isn't. You might think it is, but that is definitely not the community consensus on the matter. We have hundreds of thousands of stubs on Wikipedia that have not been expanded yet. Does that mean they should all be deleted or redirected? Just because you don't want to trim the plot or expand the article does not mean the topic is "not notable". Please don't do this again. C F A 💬 20:05, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

"The coverage of a fictional work should not be a mere plot summary."

That is a direct quote from WP:PLOTONLY.

> We have hundreds of thousands of stubs on Wikipedia that have not been expanded yet. Does that mean they should all be deleted or redirected?

Yes. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 21:29, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

... And WP:PLOTONLY is an essay – someone's opinion – with zero weight in policy. C F A 💬 23:11, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2