Talk:Despicable Me (film)

Cleaned up!
I sort of corrected some of the problems in this article. Does this mean I have cleaned up? 2679D (talk) 06:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

You are edit warring and refusing to answer my questions
I am trying to trim dialogue quotes down to reasonable levels to make way for more single lines, and will trim away minor lines as well. But I cannot do this with you assuming bad faith and constantly mass-deleting my edits. Additionally you have not highlighted any policy which bans character subsections. Dronebogus (talk) 16:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Take this into account. Policy or not, an administrator agrees. DawgDeputy (talk) 16:50, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for citing an actual precedent, but that’s not a rule. I think a middle ground would be preferable, where a handful of major individual lines are added and dialogue is cut into smaller sections. Dronebogus (talk) 16:53, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * And character subsections are not recommended, because it opens the door to vandalism, such as meaningless quotes, duplicate quotes, addition of too many quotes that exceed the limit, etc. That is why character subsections had to be removed, to curb these violations. DawgDeputy (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * And before you even think of bringing up WQ:LOQ "not being official policy", let me remind you that one IP user recently got blocked a second time for "continued adding of too many quotes, after warnings". I suggest you do not follow that IP's path. DawgDeputy (talk) 16:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Some thoughts, as DawgDeputy has cited some of my edits as justification for some actions:
 * Character subsections in and of themselves are not problematic - it is a problem when quotes are repeated in these subsections when they already exist in the dialogue section or when a flood of quotes (especially simple, unmemorable ones) are added to the individual section when there are already plenty of quotes on the page
 * The user in question that was blocked for continuing to add too many quotes after warnings was adding massive amounts of quotes, well beyond what a reasonable person would expect for a film
 * LOQ is not policy, but rather is a guideline at this point. That means that while it provides good guidance on what might be a reasonable amount of quotes for a page, it is not gospel. I happen to believe that it is a fairly good barometer for how many quotes should be added for film and especially TV show pages. But we do have some freedom here and should not be held to any rigid standard when the limits are merely proposed policy.
 * Dronebogus, just to be clear, trimming down dialogue sections into smaller chunks does not then allow for the addition of a number of individual quotes - the limits guidelines are based on total number of quotes, not on their length.
 * That being said, I believe that a sound course of action has been proposed, in which a handful of major individual lines are allowed, at the expense perhaps of a few sections of dialogue - there is room for both types of quotes for films. It so happens sometimes that there are no major individual lines that stand out and only dialogue sections are shown on a page - this is OK too.
 * In the end, edit warring is not helping anything and you are both guilty of that. Please stop this behavior ASAP.
 * ~ UDScott (talk) 17:21, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I think the LOQ guidelines should probably be changed to quote length rather than number for this exact reason. Dronebogus (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

UDScott edits
I have made further edits to the page to try to arrive at a compromise - I fixed the formatting and did some further trimming. As to the LOQ - you are more than welcome to create discussions about the content of the proposed policy - there has been much debate about it over the years. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:38, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The changes were unnecessary. Most of the individual lines I added were short. On a practical basis that means they’re only taking up the same amount of space as one long quote. You can’t say LOQ is a guideline then treat it like policy. Deletion without rationale makes it look like your opinion is a trump card, which is what DawgDeputy is doing to chill discussion. Dronebogus (talk) 17:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Why did you undo UDScott's edit to the page without first discussing it with him? I am not redoing that edit, or I will run the risk of continuing this edit war. DawgDeputy (talk) 19:58, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Isn’t the correct pattern something like “1 edits, 2 reverts, 1 goes to talk page? Dronebogus (talk) 20:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Better still, 1 edits 2 reverts and goes to talk page. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You should have discussed before actually undoing an administrator's edit. DawgDeputy (talk) 20:02, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Do admins really have higher authority on basic edits like this? I thought admins were only of higher authority if they did something only they could do or were asked to resolve a dispute. Dronebogus (talk) 20:17, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No, admins acting as admins do not have any special authority when editing. That said, you would do well to give extra consideration when any uninvolved and experienced editor - admin or not - makes a good faith effort to mediate a dispute. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:07, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Cleanup
How should this be cleaned up?
 * The section titled "Lines" is not the correct way to present the quotes. This should be broken up into sections for individual speakers. IMHO, some of these should also be trimmed - but my efforts to do so led to an edit war (and no other admins seemed to wish to comment on the discussion, so I let it go at the time). ~ UDScott (talk) 23:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Okay Then even though dawgdeputy previously deleted character subsections though. Sakima Oxendine (talk) 23:08, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * i tried Sakima Oxendine (talk) 23:14, 7 June 2022 (UTC)