Talk:A Christmas Carol

message: , Can you please stop edit warring on this FA and DISCUSS? Thank you - SchroCat (talk) 11:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You're the one edit-warring now, my dude.  I added a source and you still undid me.  Did you even bother to check that? pbp 11:33, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't call me "my dude", or anything similar. I undid a poor edit. If you had bothered to come here after it was first reverted you would have understood just why is was a poor inclusion into the article. - SchroCat (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

text: x 2 What you have added is poor. Bullet points or trite descriptions of actions covered in the Plot section are superfluous. The section on characters is an analysis from reliable third party sources of their background etc, not a description of their action. I'm delighted you've stopped by here to discuss, but was there any need for the edit warring first? - SchroCat (talk) 11:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There wasn't, dude  The edits were reasonable and you shouldn't have undone them.  They just happen to be a style of edit you don't like, and you're creating an exaggerated interpretation of policy to wrongly justify removing them.  If I add a couple of sources, I believe there's no reason for them to be deleted. pbp 11:45, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already asked you not to call me dude, so why you are being to obstreperous is anyone's guess. As I said on my talk page, please leave the aggression elsewhere and discuss civilly.As to the content, the edits were poor. This is an FA, and it has high standards. As I have explained, the Characters section is about the background of the characters, not a regurgitation of actions already covered in the Plot section. It is utterly pointless trying to crowbar the repetition of character names and their actions: it doesn't improve people's understanding of the work by providing new information, and that's the key driver. Why or how do you think it would improve the article? - SchroCat (talk) 11:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There's an expectation of what you get in "characters" section.  If people see a "characters" section in a book or movie article, they expect to find what I added: short descriptions of each of the main characters.  You'll find similar lists in many Wikipedia articles about books and movies.  Might it be redundant to other sections of the article?  Perhaps, but the ease of navigability makes up for that.  The "characters" section prior to my edits is mistitled, it doesn't fulfill the function of character sections in similar articles.  And it being an FA doesn't preclude people from making BOLD efits pbp 12:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

text: @Purplebackpack89 - This is a WP:Featured article. It has gone through a rigorous process to make sure the prose, image licensing, source formatting, source reliability, comprehensiveness, neutrality etc etc is up to snuff. Additionally, editors are advised to use the talk page or contact the main contributors to the article before making large changes (like you did). I advise you to consider whether you think your edit was up to the FA standards. Best, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 12:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe my edit added something to the article that needed to be there.  The information I added about the characters is easily sourced from the articles on the characters themselves. pbp 12:06, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  - It needs to be sourced here too. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 12:09, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: One of my edits had sources.  The Great and Powerful SchroCat undid it anyway.  pbp 12:11, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the substance was poor, as three people are now telling you. It did not aid the reader one iota in their understanding of the topic. (And take out the out the snark: I can be much ruder than you can, but it's not a competition I can be bothered to get into). - SchroCat (talk) 12:17, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I fundamentally disagree with the claim "It did not aid the reader one iota in their understanding of the topic.", and I'm entitled to say so here.  The idea that we can cover the characters in the plot makes a huge assumption: that people are reading this end-to-end.  If people just want information about the characters, they'd look in the characters section and skip the other sections pbp 12:21, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course you're entitled to say it, but it doesn't make it right though. We don't repeat factoids in multiple sections to try and guess where people will read. We ensure all the relevant information from high-quality sources is in the article, and we only put that information in once in the body (although some stuff is inevitably repeated in lead and IB). - SchroCat (talk) 12:31, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: To you, SchroCat, this isn't even about the article anymore.  This is about you needing to be RIGHT and you trying to put an editor you see as beneath youin his place.  I make no assumptions about Tim and RNDDude, but you're not acting in good faith.  I will not be bullied by you, and I stick to my opinion. pbp 12:43, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, any chance of sticking to CIVIL, AGF, comment on content, not editor, etc? As far as I am concerned, this is entirely about the article and nothing else. You can pop the accusations of bad faith wherever you wish: I am commenting only on the article, and I am not bullying anyone. You are, as I have already said, completely entitled to keep your opinion, but at the moment, three other people disagree with you on it. - SchroCat (talk) 12:59, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

text: The additions have problems. The majority of the contribution is repeating plot points that are already covered. Examples include:  adding  to the character section, but all of that is stated much earlier in the article with .  also with  when that same information is provided much earlier with the lines  and . I suppose you could add the words 'and indifference to the poor' to that sentence, but is it necessary?  I hardly need mention that the Ghosts of Christmas are also covered much earlier in the article and in far greater detail than the terse  description provided.  There are also prosaic issues, such as . The awkward repetitiveness of 'treatable' and 'untreated' stick out, there should not be a hyphen for potentially fatal (the adverb describes the adjective, not the noun), and 'suffers' might be questionable encyclopedic tone.  I don't doubt the good faith intent, but I don't see the edit as an improvement in totality. There may be elements that could be incorporated elsewhere, such as the aforementioned  phrase, but that's up for discussion. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: If there's a characters section, it needs to provide information about the characters.  Why would people look for information about characters in the Plot section when a characters section exists? pbp 12:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It provides information on the characters who need to have more said on them: those where there is analysis in reliable secondary sources. It's not a section for listing character names and repeating their actions. - SchroCat (talk) 12:18, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, I believe that it should be a section for listing character names and repeating their actions.  That's one vote for that opinion. pbp 12:44, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: We have a whole encyclopaedia of articles that avoid doing what you want to do, and (on this talk page) three editors who have expressed the opposite opinion. - SchroCat (talk) 12:59, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Three editors expressing one opinion here on the talk page doesn't prevent me from expressing another opinion.  How about less bullying me and more compromising with me? pbp 19:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I have said at several points in this thread that you not only entitled to your opinion, but you have the right to say it. That's not bullying by any measure. Nothing I have said or done could be construed as such. - SchroCat (talk) 19:54, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

text: Express your opinion all you like, Wikipedia works off of consensus and currently a 3:1 ratio of opposition:support is not going to get your desired change instated any time soon. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:00, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a very strange thing to say, PBP. Nobody has told you that you're not entitled to express your opinion, much less that you're not entitled to hold it. And I see no bullying here; I see three editors (now four, and you can count me as five) disagreeing with another editor and that editor unnecessarily personalising the dispute. Consensus means you win some, you lose some. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:39, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: HJ, you really haven't spoken to my rationale for adding this.  Why no to my changes?  Why would people look for information on the characters in the Plot section when a characters section exists.  NOBODY has given me a real response to this question pbp 21:24, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: They have, but you didn't get the response you wanted, so you claim they didn't. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 23:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

text: takes two to edit-war, so don't forget to criticize SchroCat as well.  Also, your claim that I created a characters heading is a bit off; there already was one and I added to it pbp 21:34, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I will also note that you wrote "realize" in the article. Should be consistent with the rest of the article ("realise"). Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: So-and-so is a murderer too, so don't forget to criticize him?  What a bad argument.  Also, See WP:BRD.  The proper sequence is: 1. You make a bold edit.  2. Another editor opposes your edit.  3.  You take it to the Talk page. You should WP:DROPTHESTICK. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:58, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits about characters 

message: The paragraph “beloved sister Fan, who died young while giving birth to Fred” is a common assumption based from the 1951 film adaptation. In the book, the cause of her death is not mentioned, the ghost simply saying “she died a woman”. This could be changed to “late beloved sister Fan, the mother of Fred”. In addition, the paragraph, “Scrooge, upset by hearing Belle's description of the man that he has become” could be changed to “Scrooge, upset at what losing his engagement to Belle cost him”, as Dickens makes it clear in the writing that Scrooge is upset over the thought that Belle’s children could have been his. 92.17.199.182 (talk) 14:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks IP. You're right on the first point (which I've now changed). On the second point, I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that "Scrooge is upset over the thought that Belle's children could have been his". The text does not say it outright, which means it would be WP:original research to make the claim that was why he was upset. - SchroCat (talk) 14:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  “Plot section” 

message: :The story was illicitly copied in January 1844; Dickens took legal action against the publishers, who went bankrupt, further reducing Dickens's small profits from the publication.
Manning that Dickens might've recovered some dough from them, or that their sales cut into legitimate sales?
:Dickens acknowledged the influence of the modern Western observance of Christmas and later inspired several aspects of Christmas, including family gatherings, seasonal food and drink, dancing, games and a festive generosity of spirit.
Dickens inspired those traditions, you say, but not till later (i.e. not via this story)? But it also says these very "modern Western" traditions influenced his writing of the story? That paragraph seems like a kangaroo jumping into its own pouch. – AndyFielding (talk) 04:33, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no ambiguity in either of these when taken in context. The text makes it clear about the small profits, and we don’t refer to any money being paid to him by the ‘bankrupt’ copiers. For the second point, again no ambiguity in context. Dickens captured the zeitgeist and was influenced by modern developments which he also later inspired in others. No kangaroos were harmed in the writing, although some straw men were exposed. - SchroCat (talk) 08:27, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Two ambiguities