Talk:Aren't We All?

Plot summary
Can someone please add a full-blown plot summary section? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Unwarranted reverts
I'm probably just talking to myself, which ime is usually what happens when I try to initiate a discussion on the talk page for a low-profile article... but here goes:

Jcejhay (talk) 11:09, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If someone is intent on keeping a plot description in the lead to one sentence, that doesn't mean it can be a run-on ungrammatical sentence. Anyone who wants it to be just one sentence should probably condense it by taking out some of the details.
 * For that matter, why do we even need a plot description in the lead? (Does this article about a minor theatrical production even warrant a plot description at all?)
 * What we certainly don't need is a plot description written like someone's subjective critical assessment. Even if the opinions echo those of a published critic, that doesn't mean it's appropriate to present them as though they were facts. And if you don't want citations in the lead, then don't use opinions there, because opinions need attribution.
 * The issue is not whether the playwright, or characters, referred to women employed as retail clerks as "shopgirls." The issue is that such a term is not appropriate in the voice of Wikipedia. Hence the scare quotes—or find some other way of saying it, e.g., "retail clerks."


 * It appears that you do not have experience with theatre pieces. This article needs a full-blown plot section.  See MOS:PLOT.  The Lead must also give a very brief summary of the plot, which is customarily the second sentence of the lead, after the sentence that introduces the creators of the show.  The next paragraph summarizes the Productions section.  You are also mistaken about the grammar.  You should look up "run on sentencence", because that is not what this sentence is.  This sentence is a compound sentence with clauses linked by a conjunction and a semicolon.  These are the key details that belong in the Lead.  The reason we need it in the Lead is found in WP:LEAD.  Plot descriptions are based on the play's script and do not need separate refs.  Again, see MOS:PLOT.  Nothing in the summary is an opinion, it is just summarizing the text of the play, where these young women are called shopgirls.  BTW, Wiktionary has a definition of shopgirl that says they are young women who work in shops.  Wikipedia is not censored -- if that's what the play calls them, it is appropriate.  Also, an article about a play or musical should focus on the work and its productions.  If there are adaptations of the work, they can be briefly summarized in an Adaptations section, but we don't want multiple adaptations sections and headings. The reason why your Talk page messages are not, as you imply above, well received, may be that you have not familiarized yourself with the Manual of Syle and other Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Also, per WP:CIVIL, please try to avoid insulting other editors with accusations.  I am confident that my grasp of grammar is quite good, as I have an Ivy League English degree and spent a career writing for extremely exacting editors, including writing a column *on writing* for several years. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That's a coincidence, @Ssilvers: I also have an Ivy League English degree. Etcetera. There's too much (I'm trying not to be "insulting" here)... questionable content in your reply for me to want to spend any more time unpacking it, so I'll just bid you a good day and leave you to have the last word on what belongs in this (imho) embarrassing article. Jcejhay (talk) 17:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The problem with this stub (not really an article yet), is too little content. I didn't write this stub. Feel free to do the necessary research and help to fill it out to make it an FA-level article.  Criticizing stubs and complaining about minor editorial choices is easy to do but not very helpful.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:01, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Ssilvers I am here to improve articles (and stubs) by making small improvements in tone, grammar, style, clarity, and structure. But I will certainly not attempt any further revisions of any kind on this stub that you are so invested in. Again, I wish you a good day. Jcejhay (talk) 19:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)