Talk:The Quiet Gentleman

message: == Attribution to Citizendium for the more generic plot summary ==
I wrote the more generic plot summary (placed above the one which spoils the mystery) from Citizendium and I'm copying it here with attribution, as allowed.Harborsparrow (talk) 18:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is the text which I added that was basically wrecked and mostly removed without adequate explanation or prior discussion:Harborsparrow (talk) 21:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

text: , It clearly is allowed that there be a spoiler, but I'm asking you if its really a good idea in this case.  That spoiler is the biggest tension the book has going for it; the reader cannot tell whether the obvious culprit is really the culprit.  As for how the book ends, that is not a spoiler in this case, because all her books are formulaic and the expected positive outcome is part of the safety framework within which Heyer wrote.  What might be worth considering, in the case of a complex plot like this one, is whether some of the details now in the plot summary are needed, such as person names and place names (to me, those are just window-dressing).  The Lucy subplot, for example, is really not relevant; its main purpose seems to be to expand upon the younger brother's character and tendencies.  For a book like this , I think people read the plot summary for one of two reasons: 1) they never read the book and want to decide if they might like to, and 2) they've read many Heyer books and want to be reminded which book this one is.  Especially in the latter case, a stripped down summary would be a relief.  Please think about it.  I won't edit this article any more, because we seen to have differing approaches and I don't want to butt heads with anyone here.  But I think a streamlined approach is better.  I actually liked offering the readers either version, as I had done before you stopped by.  Best regards, HS.Harborsparrow (talk) 13:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, editing guidelines are not negotiable. Much of your reasoning above lies outside Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and is beside the point. Meanwhile, I've replied to you message on my own talk page. Sweetpool50 (talk) 13:57, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: I wrote the more generic plot summary (placed above the one which spoils the mystery) from Citizendium and I'm copying it here with attribution, as allowed.Harborsparrow (talk) 18:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attribution to Citizendium for the more generic plot summary 

message: Someone has recently radically changed the more generic plot summary I wrote, sucking bits of it into the pre-existing summary which contained, in my opinion, not only too much extraneous detail such as names (which are unnecessary for a plot), which was too long, and worse, which spoiled the mystery.  I did not initiate a discussion about that here because I did not wreck the previous plot summary at all but instead left it entirely intact, only amending the header to indicate that it contained spoilers and placing the generic, short, non-spoiler version above it.  So what rule did I break to distinguish between a short, pithy summary with no spoilers and the very long Cliff Notes version we now have that students could use to make a book report without even bothering to read the book?Harborsparrow (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is the text which I added that was basically wrecked and mostly removed without adequate explanation or prior discussion:Harborsparrow (talk) 21:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

text: , It clearly is allowed that there be a spoiler, but I'm asking you if its really a good idea in this case.  That spoiler is the biggest tension the book has going for it; the reader cannot tell whether the obvious culprit is really the culprit.  As for how the book ends, that is not a spoiler in this case, because all her books are formulaic and the expected positive outcome is part of the safety framework within which Heyer wrote.  What might be worth considering, in the case of a complex plot like this one, is whether some of the details now in the plot summary are needed, such as person names and place names (to me, those are just window-dressing).  The Lucy subplot, for example, is really not relevant; its main purpose seems to be to expand upon the younger brother's character and tendencies.  For a book like this , I think people read the plot summary for one of two reasons: 1) they never read the book and want to decide if they might like to, and 2) they've read many Heyer books and want to be reminded which book this one is.  Especially in the latter case, a stripped down summary would be a relief.  Please think about it.  I won't edit this article any more, because we seen to have differing approaches and I don't want to butt heads with anyone here.  But I think a streamlined approach is better.  I actually liked offering the readers either version, as I had done before you stopped by.  Best regards, HS.Harborsparrow (talk) 13:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, editing guidelines are not negotiable. Much of your reasoning above lies outside Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and is beside the point. Meanwhile, I've replied to you message on my own talk page. Sweetpool50 (talk) 13:57, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  we might consider going back to the previous situation re: plot summary