Talk:Abridgement

Yu-Gi-Oh?
I like the series as much as anyone, but that doesn't belong here at all. It's a parody series, the only real connection is has to abridgement is the title and the fact that it is shorter. The article explains that the point of abridgement is to maintain as much of the plot as possible while cutting everything that isn't necessary while those series are comedies that ignore basically the entire plot. I think it needs to be removed, but I won't do it without discussing it here first. Jay42 19:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I am removing the section on "abridgement for anime" it is either unremarkable and would follow other standard understandings of abridgement and therefore would not require its own section, or it is an unrelated parody (as is stated in the soon to be deleted section, and therefore does not belong here. I take the latter view and I'm taking the initiative to delete.

Antwerp42 19:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not written clearly and it's mainly discussing anime that has been abridged by users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.82.183 (talk) 20:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Mentioning the Yu-Gi-Oh abridged version is just plain stupid, no matter how funny that show may be. But I think it should be mentioned that abridgment of any kind of material can also be done as a parody of that work, it's not just anime and cartoons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.69.48 (talk) 04:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Easiest way to solve the Anime Abridged Series debate is to leave in the line about parody that's in the introduction. Question: who edited that in? Raekuul, bringer of Tropes (talk) 23:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I watch that show to (and tried to create and article on it but they wouldn't let me). It shouldn't be specifically mentioned but it should have something about abridged serieses (lets face it they exist in fairly large quantites and this is an encyclopedia), i have added a small bit about it in the opening. 122.108.58.140 (talk) 05:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the best way to fix the abridged series section is to make a new article entitled "Abridged Series". The Abridgement page could contain a link to that page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.239.49 (talk) 00:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Abridged as an artform

 * 100% original research. Should be removed.  Posting it here first to clear the air before I do anything. JuJube (talk) 02:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Why?
Why is there nothing on here about any Abridged series? —Preceding

unsigned comment added by 173.13.124.40 (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Because Wikipedia doesn't care.

I agree, there are dozens of notable animes, and like a hundred less notable ones being abridged.

Abridging an Anime Series Online
I've been a long time fan of Mobile Suit Gundam Abridged by GuttedWrenStudios, and I feel that major amounts of content could be written about abridging anime series online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.208.74.122 (talk) 19:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

English variation
Hello McDonald46 and Grachester. I am bringing this to the article talk page (rather than our collective talk pages) to invite wider participation in this discussion. McDonald46, I know that Wikipedia's rules are complex and arcane, and at times seem arbitrary. And I believe that you are here in good faith, and I sincerely hope you continue to contribute to Wikipedia regardless of the outcome of this discussion. That being said, on Wikipedia, we decide everything by consensus. One such "agreement" among editors is MOS:RETAIN, which councils us to "use the variety found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety". Luckily, the first version of the article was not a stub. Therefore, the manual of style says that we should use the English variation present in that version, which is British English. I realize that there are other uses of American English in the article, but that does not change the fact that the original article used British English. All American English spellings should have been corrected to use British English, rather than the other way around. Would you be willing to revert your changes? HouseBlastertalk 16:35, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This is an interesting talk. As I'm looking at the stub version though, it is clear that this article was intended to be written in American English. In America, which I'm pretty sure you know, it is also very and incredibly common for people to use the spelling abridgement instead of abridgment, just like judgment and judgement. It is not as fixed of a rule as color vs. colour, which firmly does not permit both spellings. You'll find this heavily evident in social media websites and posts, which I'm sure you know since you are an American resident. The author, in all his edit history, has written using American English, which proves his intentions that he wrote the article in American English, for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oder&diff=prev&oldid=272307985. To add, this doesn't help with the fact that the article in its current state has American English outweighing British English. When both of these scenarios are considered for evaluation, both of them sway toward the American English variety for the article when both are scenarios are reviewed. Hence, from my conclusion, the American English should be retained. McDonald46 (talk) 06:01, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Is this fair, HouseBlaster? McDonald46 (talk) 06:04, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Even though the original author wrote mostly in American English, it is clear that he intended this article to be written in British English. The entirety of the first revision is content imported from the 1771 Encyclopædia Britannica, which is in the public domain (see the tag at the bottom of the revision); Britannica uses British English, not American English. I continue to believe that consensus asks us to use British English for this article. HouseBlastertalk 01:25, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I see where you're coming from. There's a problem with this notion. The entirety of the first revision was actually not imported from Britannica. Although he may have incorporated some data from Britannica articles, he actually has written the article himself. If you put the entire article in a plagiarism checker, it is almost entirely original, give or take a few sentences (some of these actually being written from an Ohio university paper itself). Furthermore, Britannica staunchly prefers the no 'e' spelling. Since Britannica is such an old encyclopedia and has begun when British English still predominantly used the spellings judgment, abridgment, etc and has remained firm on their position on how to spell these words (https://www.britannica.com/science/judgment-psychology as an instance) and since he used it with an 'e', it cannot have been imported. Thus, he, an American author himself, did actually intend to write in American English. When both scenarios are considered (the article in its current form and conception by an American author), both pictures paint and are to American English variety. Do you understand what I'm saying? Am I being fair? McDonald46 (talk) 02:44, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It is American in origin and currently has American outweighing the British variety. I hope I'm being fair. McDonald46 (talk) 02:51, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This Ohio paper also happens to use abridgement instead.
 * https://etd.ohiolink.edu/apexprod/rws_etd/send_file/send?accession=osu1488204276532364 McDonald46 (talk) 02:59, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I genuinely hope this resolves any confusion. McDonald46 (talk) 03:07, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand what you are saying, and I appreciate your good-faith arguments. I hope you believe me when I say that I am not trying to be difficult, and am arguing in good faith myself. If all editors were as courteous as you are, Wikipedia would be a much better place.The original author did actually import the entire text from Britannica. You can access the source here (note the use of the long s). And while Britannica might use "abridgment" today, the source entry uses the spelling abridg e ment. Best, HouseBlastertalk 03:21, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I am now in consensus. I’ve learned something new. Thanks, HouseBlaster. McDonald46 (talk) 04:47, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have done the page move per your request here. Thank you for engaging in such a thoughtful discussion, and let me know if you need any help navigating Wikipedia! Best, HouseBlastertalk 11:56, 9 May 2023 (UTC)