Talk:A Little Kiss

Critical reception section
Do we really need three lengthy paragraphs of reviews? — WylieCoyote (talk) 02:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Compared to other episode articles, three paragraphs is conservative. Penny Lane&#39;s America (talk) 05:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Check out both the "Meet Kevin Johnson" article and the "18 Miles Out" article for illustration. Those are both GA'd. Penny Lane&#39;s America (talk) 06:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I hope Mad Men has as many Wiki fans as Lost and TWD do. And there's nothing wrong with being "conservative." (Side note: funny how my plot summary gets trimmed, but it's okay to have lengthy reviews? By my word count, there are 760 words in the summary and 960 in the reviews.)— WylieCoyote (talk) 22:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comparing the reception section and the plot summary is a false equivalency. It's also not anything personal. I thought the plot summary you wrote was very well-written, but guidelines say we should keep summaries under 500 words and avoid detailing specific scenes and jokes. As you can see, most of your summary was kept in tact (from just over 1,000 to about 750). The fact that "A Little Kiss" was a 90 minute episode instead of a 60-minute episode probably means we can get away with 750. I realize that writing plot summaries are time-sucks and that a lot of hard-working editors get upset when they are touched. Plot summaries aren't supposed to be very detailed to avoid copyright infringement and are, for the most part, more difficult to read when long. Critical reception is supposed to elaborate on the episode using academic analysis and critical opinion. Also, more people coming to this page are more likely to have seen the episode already (and we're not supposed to be a substitute for the episode), but may not have read critical opinion of the episode. On a side note, for the rest of the season, I'd prefer it for the reception section used quotes focused on specific scenes and the specific episodic tone, things of that nature, etc.. Most of the premiere reviews were vague because Weiner asked most of the early (aka major publication) reviewers to keep their review pieces vague to avoid spoilers, so it resulted in a lot of "The premiere was great!" reviews this week. In addition, I'll probably add some photos to the body of this article to make it easier to read. Penny Lane&#39;s America (talk) 02:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I, for one, don't particularly care for "critical opinion" but include them in episode/film articles for those that do. I've written plot summaries for about 26 different episodes that haven't been touched...till now. No one has ever mentioned "copyright infringement" and being "more difficult to read"...till now. I would think adding photos to the article from the show would classify as copyright infringement or, to quote the fair-use policy, shouldn't be used if the text can describe it better, which is why I quit posting pictures in infoboxes, etc. Someone kept requesting their deletion. I think I will just leave Mad Men's articles alone, as you appear to be "in control." I don't get involved in edit wars. — WylieCoyote (talk) 19:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This is hardly an edit war. Your opinion of "critical opinion" is irrelevant. The photos in this article all either free images or have been passed by the fair use brigade. I also don't claim to be in control, and I feel that you're putting words in my mouth in an attempt to demonize me. Honestly, I didn't realize when I cut 200 words (ie, what amounts to a regular paragraph) from your plot summary several days ago that it would kick off some whirligig of personal resentment. I'm sorry that you feel you have to stop editing. As for the plot stuff you've "never heard mentioned", see:Plot_summaries and How_to_write_a_plot_summary Penny Lane&#39;s America (talk) 21:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Speaking of demonizing, I'm glad to see a fellow Wiki editor's opinion on something is "irrelevant" to you, considering that IS the topic at hand. Hence, my edit war comment. As for the images used, yes, they are fine, even though the target audience should know who Huck Finn and Tony Soprano are. A few of mine for another show was removed from the infoboxes, when I first began writing episode articles and became a topic of discussion with administrators. See here (HOWBread) and here. So, yes, I now question ALL uses. My summaries for other shows were never questioned, as in "never mentioned", as for the "length" that you cited, it says this: "There is no universal set length for a plot summary, though it should not be too excessively long." There's no 750-1000 number limits anywhere. Another new season of my favorite show is coming up, but after this week, I just don't have it in me to do episode articles anymore. — WylieCoyote (talk) 22:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It is true that there is no universal set length, but it has been suggested in WP:TVPLOT that "As a rough guide, summaries for episode articles should be about 200 to 500 words." I have tried, at various points, to be courteous to you. I don't understand the hostility. Penny Lane&#39;s America (talk) 22:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You can't just spout incomplete "rules". After the above linked statement, it also says "Complicated plots may take more space to present than simpler plots." Most ensemble shows HAVE complicated plots. The above-linked articles for LOST and TWD aren't 2-500 words. I was just trying to help out, which I now regret doing. Consider this subject topic, which apparently is now a moot point, closed. — WylieCoyote (talk) 21:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Note about External Link
I am writing about an addition I made to the external links for Season 4 and Season 5 of Mad Men which was automatically reverted by your bot. These links are from Kritik, the official weblog of the Unit for Criticism & Interpretive Theory, a recognized institute for cultural studies at the University of Illinois. The Unit for Criticism's multi-authored series of posts on Season 4 and Season 5 of Mad Men is the offshoot of a series of events including a symposium and Duke University Press book on the same topic. Each blog is authored by a recognized expert in cultural history, media studies and/or literary studies. Please do not remove this link as it does comply with Wikipedia policy and guidelines. We would be delighted to answer any questions you may have. 192.17.134.9 (talk) 19:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)I am writing about the addition above that was reverted again. We are not in violation of copyright issues. Please send us any questions you may have about the links we are making to the official weblog Kritik.128.174.194.84 (talk) 21:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)