Talk:Drama dari Krakatau

Plot section

 * Material copied from FAC thread after the nomination was closed.

With all due respect, I disagree with Ian. When taken as a whole Manual of Style/Writing about fiction is quite clear in its strong prescription to avoid WP:INUNIVERSE perspective. E.g., "Articles about fiction, like all Wikipedia articles, should adhere to the real world as their primary frame of reference. The approach is to describe the subject matter from the perspective of the real world, in which the work of fiction and its publication are embedded ... consider that real-world perspective is not an "optional" quality criterion but a general, basic requirement for all articles." This passage is from the first section in the guideline, then in Conclusions it states: "When writing about fiction, keep the following in mind: The principal frame of reference is always the real world, in which both the work of fiction and its publication are embedded: write from a real-world perspective; Readability and comprehensibility: put all information into context with the original fiction". So while the language of MOS:PLOT seems to give all single works an exemption in this regard, I suggest that that contradiction should be fixed not followed. The avoidance of in-universe perspective is a central theme of the guideline, so what's the purpose of an exemption that apparently applies to all single works of fiction? Real world perspective is the rule not the exception, since the vast majority of fictional works are not part of a series. Why do we have the all encompassing directive of using real world perspective when writing about fictional works if this only applies to works that are part of a series? We should not write our MoS this way. Deferring to a delegate is often a wise course of action, but the delegates do not have override power in terms of the MoS, do they? GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  17:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As this canditature has closed, this isn't the place to continue the conversation: perhaps the article talk page would be a better venue? (And, for what it's worth, I find the plot here follows the path of the majority of book and film plots I've read on Wiki). - SchroCat (talk) 17:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Right you are, SchroCat. I hadn't noticed that Ian closed the nom; sorry, but to respond to your comment, 1) WP:OSE. 2) How many of these are FA?, and 3) Are you saying that WP:INUNIVERSE and WP:Real world only apply to works in a series? Wouldn't that mean that most works are exempt from the MoS prescription to use real world perspective? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  17:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the alphabetti-spaghetti, but I think that we can probably pick up on minutae in almost everything if we wanted to (There is some three letter acronym telling people not to use the phrase "with all due respect" in talk, for example!) I picked three FA literature works at random: Watchmen, Pilgrim at Tinker Creek and Pattern Recognition (novel). Have a look and let me know what you think. What they have—and what this article has in common—are big flags in the lead: there already mentios of the fact it's a novel, inspired by a novel in the opening two lines. We then use the word "Plot": that really does say it's a fictional work. So, by the time readers get to reading the plot, there have been three references to the fact that this is a novel. If I started reading a plot section to be told for the fourth time that it's a novel, I'll probably lose the will to live! - SchroCat (talk) 18:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:OSE, and 2) That's a strawman argument. I never suggested that this needed to be repeated ad nauseum. One mention of the real world to establish the proper context in the lead, and one at the start of the Plot section is all I've argued for. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Per SchroCat. Gabe, I've pointed you to six or seven FAs on works of fiction. If you are not reading them, and thus not understanding how MOS:FICTION is applied by the average editor, than if you misunderstand it it is your own fault. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Guys, without trying to come across as peacemaker, I value Gabe's input to FAC, just as I value Crisco's and Schro's. I'm not a lawyer but to use an analogy, balancing precedent (extant FAs) with statute (MOS) can be tricky. Of course the analogy falls down a bit because much of MOS isn't policy, it's guidelines, which don't carry quite the same weight and are open to more liberal interpretation. I think, Gabe, that the emphasis on 'real world' in the MOS is, and should be taken as, applying to how WP presents works of fiction as a whole, not necessarily how the plot of a work within an article should be written. Crisco's article, taken as a whole, applies the real-world principle. One section within that whole eschews real-word perspective per the single-work clause in the MOS plot summary guideline (and IMO per common sense). Where there's room for interpretation, I would always try to respect the voice of the main editor(s) of an article, in this case Crisco. If someone wrote a plot summary in a fiction article and employed "The novel begins..." and Crisco objected, I think I would also say that there's not a black-and-white answer and that the main editor's position should be respected (this principle applies to many areas, such as citation formatting, the number of paragraphs in a lead, date format in US military articles, etc, etc, and I try to apply it universally). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Ian. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Just as one comment, "It is 1883, and..." is very much in-universe style (it puts the reader in that frame, which is not what we should do), and the only problematic part of this summary. Using "In 1883, ..." as a replacement fixes that problem. You don't need to mention it being a novel or the like (it can be done, but not required). --M ASEM (t) 18:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * , if we substituted "In 1883" for "It is 1883", ho would you reconcile the rest of the sentence, which wouldn't make sense as: "In 1883, and Krakatoa is stirring for the first time in 200 years"? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You take out the word "and", problem solved. It's not difficult. --M ASEM (t) 21:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you explain how that solves the issue of writing from an in-universe perspective? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "In 1883, Krakatoa is stirring for the first time in 200 years" is in-universe because if you substituted any different year and noun the perspective would not change. I.e., "In 2436, Olympus Mons is stirring for the first time in 2000 years"? Nothing about this sentence sets the context as real world. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Masem, you keep repeating the assertion: "You don't need to mention it being a novel", but do any Wikipedia guidelines support this, or is this just your personal opinion? Per WP:CYF: "Instead of writing: "Trillian is Arthur Dent's girlfriend. She was taken away from Earth by Zaphod when he met her at a party. She meets Dent while travelling with Zaphod", write: "Trillian is a fictional character from Douglas Adams' radio, book and now film series The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. In the first book, Trillian is introduced to the main character Arthur Dent on a spaceship. In her backstory, she was taken away from Earth when the space alien Zaphod Beeblebrox met her at a party." So, no you do not have to use the word novel, but you do need to acknowledge the real world. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

And do any guidelines insist on us using the words "in the novel"? If not, then it's a non-argument and we can all move on. Enough Gabe: you're being disruptive in this constant attack. Consensus on Drama is against you with the passing of the FAC, so drop the stick and find something constructive to do. - SchroCat (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I never said that we had to use the phrase in the novel. I said that the prose needed to be grounded in the real world, but tlak about Wikilawyering. I need to cite that exact phrase to prove that WP:INUNIVERSE and WP:Real world mean what they mean? FTR, Ian told me to take any further issues I have with the article to this talk page and you started this thread, so I think its highly inappropriate of you to try and drive me away. This article is as much mine as it is yours, because its neither of ours. Please don't characterize this as an attack. That's really a personal attack on me. I'm a good-faith editor with some minor concerns. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Good grief: accusations of wikilawyering: it's up there as one of the big "lost arguments" from people who have no other leg to stand on. Really up there with the big mindless "OWN" argument that you can feck off with accusing me off, to be honest. If you're going to drop into such pointless accusations on an article I've had little to do with outside the PR and FAC, then your losing an argument and need to start dishing out apologies. - SchroCat (talk) 22:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * RE: "I think, Gabe, that the emphasis on 'real world' in the MOS is, and should be taken as, applying to how WP presents works of fiction as a whole, not necessarily how the plot of a work within an article should be written.", I'm not sure that statement is accurate, or at least its apparently contradicted by numerous text-strings in the guidelines: " The threshold of what constitutes in-universe writing is making any effort to re-create or uphold the illusion of the original fiction by omitting real-world info", "put all information into context with the original fiction", "describe the subject matter from the perspective of the real world, in which the work of fiction and its publication are embedded", "If you add fictional information, clearly distinguish fact and fiction", "Features often seen in an inappropriate, in-universe perspective include: A plot synopsis written like a historical account". You might be correct, but that only one sentence clause in the entire MoS supports your assertion makes me doubt that you are. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Question
The lead mentions that the work is sixteen chapters long, but I'm not seeing this in the article body. I probably just missed it, but if this isn't mentioned in the article body then it should be. GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  19:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm starting to lose any of my good faith here. See the last line of the "Writing" section: "Drama dari Krakatau consists of sixteen chapters,[13]" Are you actually bothering to read this, or are you just picking bad faith fights for the hell of it? - SchroCat (talk) 22:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I expected that to be in publishing, since that's when the chapters are set, not during writing. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ??????? Chapters are set during publishing, not writing?????? Good grief! When you wrote on of your wiki articles, did you decide where to put the breaks when you wrote it, or did you leave it to someone else? Seriously?? Gabe, you're not covering yourself in glory with these comments. There are more constructive ways to spend your time, rather than doing whatever it is that you're doing. - SchroCat (talk) 22:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The chapters that a writer gives their publisher are not set-in-stone. The publisher will edit and organize a manuscript to suit their tastes. I didn't say writers don't break-up their work in chapters, but the publisher has the final say before a book goes to print. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. You're bitching for the hell of it now. - SchroCat (talk) 23:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Please re-read WP:AGF and WP:NPA, as you are starting to make this personal against me. I assumed that the material on chapters and printing would be in the publishing section. Maybe that's wrong, but its the truth, so please stop attacking me. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Guys, can we all just calm down? Gabe, you have not been building much GF with your constant stream of comments, and it's quite frankly getting on everyone's nerves. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Minor issues

 * Plot
 * "Soerijati is lost after she falls out of the carriage". What carriage? You havn't explained that she was in a carriage. This could be fixed by swapping out the definite article for an indefinite one. I.e., the → a. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Because "are sent to Rangkas Gobang by carriage" would be too much detail. I'll add "they are riding in" or something similar. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * "Moelia, the son of the Regent of Rangkas Gombong and Assistant Wedana of Sindanglaut". Will most readers know what a regent or an assistant Wedana are? They will probably not be as confused by regent, but how many will know what an assistant Wedana is? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * FFS, it's covered by the footnote right next to it. Have you bothered actually reading this, or are you just trolling for an argument. - SchroCat (talk) 22:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Just a good-faith miss; sorry. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * "Moelia travels to Mount Ciwalirang to interview him". I think interview is an odd choice here; is Moelia a journalist? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Try a dictionary Gabe. Not sure it insists on the word being the sole preserve of journalists. - SchroCat (talk) 22:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think he means to say that Moelia travels to Mount Ciwalirang to meet him. Interview seems odd; I doubt I'm the only one who might think that. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No, interview. Read the article about who a camat is and what he does. Police interview witnesses. Moelia is interviewing a man who may or may not be a threat to the stability of the regional government. That you use interview in such a narrow manner does not mean the rest of the world does. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If in order to understand the context of why you are using the word interview a casual reader would have to first read Subdivisions of Indonesia then the prose is poor in this spot, IMO. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)
 * If you must read the article on camat to understand the use of interview in this context, when not a single other reviewer took issue with it, then IMHO your reading is poor. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a borderline personal attack, Crisco, and a classy editor might redact the comment. My point is that if the article's prose is confusing to a casual reader without first reading the notes and/or ancillary articles then you might have a problem with your prose, albeit a minor one. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Considering the trolling you're doing, and the piss-poor comments you are making, I think you're way ahead of the game here. - SchroCat (talk) 00:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not trolling, SchroCat; Crisco and I are having a discussion. Please stop with the off-topic bad faith remarks. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Rubbish. There is nothing off topic in saying you are trolling when you are. Secondly, it's not bad faith to observe when someone is engaging in disruptive trolling behaviour. You need to walk away for a spell and think about what you're actually doing here, because it's not constructive. BTW, your comments on me "owning" this article are bad faith, off-topic and still need to be apologised for. - SchroCat (talk) 00:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If anyone is trolling here its you. I feel that you are trying to bully me away from this when I have every right to comment here. So, no; I won't apologize for your inappropriate behavior. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * (ec) Your reading, not you. Reading: "an interpretation" (definition 2 if you type "define reading" in Google). Merriam-Webster: 4 a : to attribute a meaning to (as something read) : interpret  b : to attribute (a meaning) to something read or considered . You insist we use AGF, but I don't see it coming from you. Footnotes are there for a reason: to give contextual information which would be out of place in the main body, but are important to the average reader's understanding of a topic. There is no MOS requirement, and IMHO it is quite poor writing, to include parentheticals in text to explain information which is only minimally related to a topic. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand that a camat interviews people, but was Moelia going to meet Noesa Brama as an official duty, because I got the impression it was a personal visit. Do off-duty police officers interrogate their friends? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The first visit was, more or less, part of his official duty, though later ones were decidedly less so. There was a bit of background information which I omitted from the summary per WP:UNDUE (and I still don't believe it is worth including, as it has little influence on the main course of the plot... if someone publishes a thematic analysis with this information, that might be worth including in the discussion, but plot-wise it is undue), but I will put it here as it is relevant to your question: following the 1926 Communist rebellion (which we surprisingly do not have an article on), the Dutch colonial government was putting increased pressure on the local leaders to keep an eye on things happening in their jurisdiction. Moelia, with those orders in mind, saw that Noesa Brama was attracting large crowds of people with what were described as miraculous cures. Considering it possible that one could use such methods to amass an army, he went to check it out. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * "Over lunch Moelia falls in love with the priest's daughter, Retna Sari, and learns that she must marry a man of equal standing to her father, one who is "no less than the Sultan of Yogyakarta or the Sunan of Solo".[c][2]"
 * Is it just me or does the first pronoun refer to Moelia? Consider: "Over lunch Moelia falls in love with the priest's daughter, Retna Sari, who must marry a man of equal standing to her father", or similar. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Does she refer to a man? Really now Gabe? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No. She shouldn't refer to a man, that's why its poor syntax. Retna Sari is set-off in commas, so the pronoun is referring to Moelia, not Retna Sari. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I would assume that one can understand that she refers to Retna Sari as she is the only woman in the sentence, but I guess that proves what they say about the word assume. Changed... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * There seems to be a little bit of inconsistency regarding the use of commas after introductory phrases. E.g., in two consecutive sentences you have: "Over lunch Moelia falls in love" and "Upon returning home, Moelia realises ". These commas are optional, but their usage should be consistent. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "Moelia barely has enough time to rescue the women before the mountain erupts a second time, killing the fugitives."
 * Unless I am confused this is the third time in the plot section that Krakatoa erupts, not the second. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The second time in 1927, Gabe. That's why years are kinda important, as is paying attention to the plot. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I know that you meant, Crisco, but its the third time in the first three paragraphs that it erupted, so its odd to me to describe it as erupting for a second time. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you are the only one who would assume that "a third time" would be easier to understand. Six or seven reviewers have gone through this article, and nobody has taken issue with that, because the implicit "in 1927" is clear. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Read the whole context, Crisco. "Before he can stop them, Krakatoa erupts again, overturning the fleeing ship. Moelia barely has enough time to rescue the women before the mountain erupts a second time, killing the fugitives." So you have "Krakatoa erupts again" followed by "the mountain erupts a second time". This is awkward, IMO. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You don't explicitly establish its 1927 anywhere in the section except to say "Forty-four years pass" in the second graph. In the paragraph in question—the third paragraph—there is no time reference whatsoever. I'm used to FAC reviewers expecting the time frame to be made more clear, and certainly not requiring readers to solve math problems, however simple. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You don't explicitly establish its 1927 anywhere in the section - And if I did you'd be complaining about "not framing a work of fiction in a RL perspective" or some damned thing like that. Furthermore, that the year is not explicit is in no way central to my point, being that readers understand that we are talking about the second eruption in a short space of time. So what are you suggesting? Repeating "again"? That's even worse. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * no, I'm not suggesting that we repeat again, but to have "Krakatoa erupts again" closely followed by "the mountain erupts a second time" is awkward. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I noticed that the Works Cited section has a few entries that are not actually cited to in the article, including Biran, Kwee(1980), and Siegel. These should be moved to a further reading section. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Gabe, those are cited in footnotes. Please read the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry. The system that I use for notes puts their cites in with the rest. I have read the article. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Bad faith comments
FFS Gabe, I'm wondering why you're doing this, given you supported this article at FAC. Why did you bother if you're only going to bitch about it afterwards? Surely if you had any issues or concerns about this, then the time and place to do it is at the FAC that you supported only yesterday... I'm bemused by your actions here - and even more bemused by the petty games you've chosen to play here. - SchroCat (talk) 23:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Please take a few minutes to re-read WP:NPA and WP:AGF. FTR, I didn't know that Ian was going to close the FAC in the middle of my review, but yes, I supported because the issues I had were not deal-breakers. Ian told me to take any further suggestions to talk, as delegates often do when a nom is closed while discussing is still occurring. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Not off topic at all: it's germane, indeed central to the argument. I know about your love of TLAs, but they are utterly immaterial when you're moving into troll territory with your disruptive edits. In future, when you decide to review an FAC, don't support before you start your review: do it at the end, and try and lose your bad faith nonsense before you even start the review. - SchroCat (talk) 23:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Gabe, Ian wrote "I'm looking at closing this nom if I get to walk through the list this evening". Unless you didn't read that, you had plenty of notice. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Crisco, I did read it and he closed the nom before I logged-in again the next day. My point was that Ian closed it as we were still discussing several points. Is that not accurate? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:33, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You are moving the goalposts, Gabe. You didn't know, now you know. Hmm... convenient. It was perfectly clear to Ian that the issues being discussed were "non-actionable", which, per the FAC instructions, the closer has the right to ignore; he also explained why he closed. You have yet to build a consensus on the issue of plot framing as you would have it, and so long as the implicit consensus still exists, I agree with Ian's judgement. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * implicit consensus? Per WP:SILENCE: "Consensus can be presumed to exist until voiced disagreement becomes evident". You are experiencing a massive AGF fail, IMO. I didn't know before Ian wrote that that he was going to close the nom and I didn't have anymore time to edit Wikipedia until after he closed it; that's all I meant. The FAC was only open for two weeks, and I've never seen one close that quickly. What's so confusing? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "I've never seen one close that quickly." Then you don't review enough. Profumo affair was quicker than this. Hiram Wesley Evans was mere days (3, if I'm not mistaken). If you "didn't know before Ian wrote that", why would you write that you didn't know here, and why would you not strike your support !vote or explicitly answer that you thought this needed more time? Your attempt to build an explicit consensus which is in line with your own opinion is clearly failing, as several people who are more familiar with writing about fiction have already opposed your wording (and if we made the discussion better known, I have no doubt that the opposition would grow). If anything, that validates my argument of an implicit consensus existing and being recognised. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems like you are taking this personally, which I don't understand. Please attempt to relax and AGF. I've never had one of my FACs closed in under 30 days, even when there were 5 supports and no opposes its always open for at least 30 days. I might review more if the experience were pleasant, but as with this episode its usually not. Those several people who agree with you are two or three of your Wikibuddies; no neutral party has said that I am wrong and that you are right. As far as I can tell its one sentence clause that implies that in-universe writing isn't a problem with singular works. That's a contradiction and a mistake, IMO. When one sentence clause contradicts 25 others the problem is not with the bulk, its with the exception. Why would plot summaries about all singular works be exempt from encyclopedic writing style? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

May I add a drive-by comment that I am distressed to see dissent between editors whom I admire? I haven't properly studied the rights and wrongs of the present casus belli, but everyone seems in agreement about the quality of the article, and I hope we can all rub along together. Tim riley (talk) 00:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, its nice to know that you admire me; the feeling is mutual. I'd rather know why you stopped reviewing my articles (hint, hint), but that's another story. I absolutely agree that the article, as with all of Crisco's writing, is high-quality. I'm not convinced that the text-string: (Real world perspective is) not as important for plot summaries of single works that are not part of a series; nevertheless, some real-world language at the beginning of summaries is often good style gives him the green light to completely disregard WP:INUNIVERSE, WP:Real world, and WP:CYF in each of his plot summaries. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As I've posted elsewhere, I don't mind using Masem's proposed wording. I just haven't had a chance to sit and think, what with the numerous comments on this page and RL keeping me pleasantly busy (pleasantly as it means enough money for new camera equipment :D). I will change the first sentence, per the discussion at the MOS talk page. However, I still believe that explicit mentions of the novel in the plot section are poor writing, and will not be including them. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)