Talk:Red Rose (TV series)

Unhelpful deletion
..."based on teenage angst" has been deleted by an editor with a queried edit summary: what does "based on teen angst" even mean? Follow the wikilink and it becomes obvious. Teenage anxiety, insecurity, low self esteem, peer pressure, blah, blah, blah. Are you American? Any UK editor would understand.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 23:07, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Just searching for 'angst': --Rocknrollmancer (talk) 23:29, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "In many ways, this series nails the complexities of teenage life – jealousy, angst,..."
 * "...we knew it was going to be a wild ride, filled with angst, drama, and above all else, spooks.".
 * "...the eight-part series follows a group of Bolton 16-year-olds as they navigate the eternal agonies of adolescence (angst, summer jobs)


 * WP:BRD The same user has again deleted my input. S/he has been invited to participate in a discussion to explain the deletions here.


 * To emphasise, objection has been made to the term teenage angst - three referenced secondary sources providing examples are shewn above.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 22:01, 29 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I do not follow this page, so I missed this talk page entry - it's not that the term "teenage angst" is ill-defined, I know what it means. I'm saying is what does it mean for a show to be "based on" teenage angst? I get that it is about or it has teenage angst, but the term "based on", in television and film, is used for primarily for stories inspired by a concrete figure, historical event, existing work of art, etc. E.g., "based on the life of Queen Elizabeth II", "based on the novel The Three Musketeers", "based on factual accounts of the Iran Hostage Crisis", and so on. Films and television series aren't "based on" abstract ideas like angst, they are ABOUT angst. You wouldn't say Love, Actually is "based on love", you would say it's a romantic comedy film about love. Nisf (talk) 23:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You could have altered the text (assuming you've seen the shows - I gave up halfway through) to better-describe what your interpretation is - merely deleting with an obtuse comment is just lazy. I wikilinked the term, showing that it is significant-enough to merit an article. You could've opened a Talk discussion, but no, just delete what you dislike. Fact is, that three sources also used the term, unchecked by me until after your first deletion. Peculiar that no-one else has dissented?


 * As I wrote on 19 August "no plot heading so add a suggestion into lede" prior to that a reader would be clueless. I anticipated and allowed for possible expansion, but not counter-productive deletion. The idea is that a summary should exist without delving into the body of the article sections, but there's no plot heading either. By your reckoning, I've done wrong by not being more descriptive. There are no guarantees that others may dislike a more in-depth summary.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 01:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No one else has dissented because you're currently one of the only editors on this page, and it doesn't seem to get much traffic. This is only the second time I've visited it, to link the article from another page. Not every copy-edit requires its own section on the Talk page, but you seem to have taken personal offense to me deleting a nonsensical phrase - I had asked what does it mean for a work to be "based on teenage angst" not "what is teenage angst". I deleted it because the phrase, as worded, doesn't make sense and, as such, doesn't add any value to the lead. But if you are personally very attached to it, far be it for me to start an edit war over it. Nisf (talk) 12:28, 30 September 2022 (UTC)