Talk:The Maze Runner (film)/Archive 1

"...from Thursday night"?
"The film was released on September 19, 2014 in the United States in 3,500 locations and over 350 IMAX theatres, and earned $1.1 million from 2,200 theatres from Thursday night."

That should probably be clarified, but I'm not sure what the author meant. – AndyFielding (talk) 21:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Credibility of reviews
I received a message on my talk page here about two reviews of questionable credibility. I agreed with the assessment and removed these reviews since there are many authoritative reviews for the film found in major publications. However, reverted my removal of these reviews as seen here. What do other editors of this article think of including or excluding these reviews? Pinging, , and (editors who have edited the article more than 10 times). Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah I'm agreed with, we should remove these two which are not much notable like others. We would find and replace another notable reviews. -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 18:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added some notable reviews by notable critics but is busy in removing those. I don't know the reason, why? -- Captain Assassin!  «T ♦ C ♦ G» 18:53, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Please participate in the discussion, or your edits will be considered disruptive. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the article had enough positive and negative reviews for the Critical response section. Lkaliba
 * No, they were not enough and notable. But now they are enough. And we are here to talk about two reviews mentioned above, which we think should be removed. -- Captain Assassin!  «T ♦ C ♦ G» 19:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for understanding us. -- Captain Assassin!  «T ♦ C ♦ G» 01:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

overly positive review summary
How does a 63% on Rotten Tomatoes and 5.9 on Metacritic equate to "mostly positive reviews" except in the most literal of senses? Surely that can be described as mixed-to-average reviews at best; this seems to be a case of biased characterization. What do others think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebastienroblin (talk • contribs) 07:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree that the wording is inappropriate. I'll review sources to see how periodicals summarized the reception. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 12:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Please do not make blanket edits, especially without explanation. The wording was a matter of concern, especially considering that Metacritic said mixed or average reviews and since Rotten Tomatoes said the score average was 5.9 out of 10. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

As Erik knows, per WP:Film, we stay away from "mixed-to-average" or "mixed to positive" wording, and similar, unless a WP:Reliable source actually uses that language, unless we are relaying that reception to the film was categorized as positive or mixed (or vice versa), or unless it's the "mixed or average" wording from Metacritic. This is how Erik changed the reception material, and it's definitely much better/more accurate.

Speaking of the reception material, I've been concerned about the content that has been adding for the box office aspects; I'm concerned because he, as currently shown on his user talk page, has engaged in sourcing and WP:Synthesis issues in the not-too-distant past. That stated, he does seem to have been editing better these days; for example, by leaving accurate edit summaries and by having added this. Flyer22 (talk) 23:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: Erik has reverted on restoring the inaccurate reception material. I then reverted Lkaliba (with a followup note), and reverted Lkaliba again...with a warning. Despite all of this, Lkaliba has restored the article to the inaccurate reception material once more. As far as I'm concerned, given Lkaliba's WP:Disruptive and deceptive editing, not only at the The Maze Runner (film) article, but at other Wikipedia articles as well, Lkaliba is not a benefit to Wikipedia and should be indefinitely blocked. An editor who engages in WP:Disruptive editing, hardly communicates, and has a severe case of WP:I didn't hear that, has no place on Wikipedia. Black Kite, you've blocked Lkaliba for WP:Disruptive editing in July of this year. Do you have anything to state on this matter? If indefinitely blocked, I know that Lkaliba is the type of editor who will create a WP:Sockpuppet and continue on with the same WP:Disruptive editing; and I'll see to it that any of Lkaliba's WP:Sockpuppets are indefinitely blocked as well. I would not be surprised if the Lkaliba account is a WP:Sockpuppet itself. Flyer22 (talk) 01:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok, before you start going around telling everyone that my account should be blocked you should at least consider my changes instead of attacking me. First of all, many young adult book adaptations that came out before have received negative-to-mixed reviews from critics, The Maze Runner is the first film since then to have a more positive reception so putting "The film received mainly positive critical reviews" or "The Maze Runner received mostly favorable reviews from critics" is accurate reception material. As well as putting "with praise aimed at the cast's performances, intriguing premise, visuals, and dark tone" because the film did receive praise for that and "Since its release, the film has grossed over $224 million worldwide against its budget of $34 million" because the film is currently over $224 million at the box-office. Next, thing there is NO such thing as a "young-adult" film. The Maze Runner is based on a young-adult novel and the young-adults maybe the film's target audience, but that doesn't make it a young-adult movie; The Fault In Our Stars was based on a young-adult novel, but didn't stop a load of teenage girls to go see it. The Maze Runner is a science fiction film with action and thrill also being the main elements, also there is no evidence of a film genre entitled "young-adult". Lkaliba (talk) 01:37, 15 October 2014‎  (UTC)


 * , you should be indefinitely blocked, for the reasons I noted above. I have not seen that you are a benefit to Wikipedia in the least, except if I have witnessed you reverting WP:Vandalism or other unconstructive edits (I can't remember if you have). You call that attacking you; I call it being blatantly honest (it certainly does not fit a WP:Personal attack violation, in my opinion). Your WP:Disruptive editing, as noted in section above and in this section, includes presenting the reception material inaccurately, not adhering to what the WP:Reliable sources state, engaging in WP:Synthesis, WP:Edit warring (restoring the article to your preferred version against objections) without explaining in a WP:Edit summary why you are reverting and without communicating on the talk page, and it includes you violating WP:Consensus. In other words, not a benefit. You only decided to comment now in this section after I brought up the likelihood of you being blocked, either for WP:Edit warring or for your WP:Disruptive editing as a whole. Either read and follow Policies and guidelines, especially WP:Edit warring (you clearly need to read and comprehend them), or you will be indefinitely blocked. Your current version of the article is not the one that we should use, per what I and others have stated in this section. As for describing the film as "young adult," that was clearly worked out here and here; I don't care if we don't describe the film as young adult, and I don't think Erik cares either, though, yes, according to some WP:Reliable sources, there is a such thing as a young-adult film. And on a side note, sign your username correctly when you comment on talk pages. This is incorrect. All you have to do to sign your username is simply type four tildes (~), like this:  . I fixed your signature above, and I used WP:Indent for your post. Also, your pinging me to this talk page above did not work. But since I watch this article (via a WP:Watchlist) and therefore its talk page, there is no need to ping me to this discussion; I only pinged you to it to make sure that you read what I stated above, since one cannot know if you will you actually read/listen to what is stated to you, and so that your contributions are easily on display for others. Flyer22 (talk) 02:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * , you are not using any edit summaries when you make edits to the article, so it is not possible to know your rationale. We cannot tell if you have a reason to undo each edit of a particular set. For example, there are several issues with the current version. First, it is pretty much acceptable by now to round box office figures per MOS:LARGENUM. Secondly, three genres are being identified in the opening sentence of the lead section, and per WP:FILMLEAD, we need to narrow this down. The critical reception is also an item of concern because as we can see from Metacritic, there were more mixed reviews than positive reviews. Even Rotten Tomatoes shows a review average of 5.9 out of 10, which means if it did a mixed category (moldy tomatoes or something), the film would fall in that category. The Wall Street Journal only says that critics liked the performances and the atmosphere, but there is extra detail that is conflating individual critics' opinions as if everyone said the same thing. We need to focus on the summary statement itself. I rewrote the Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes passage to reflect their methodology and breakdown better. We can discuss that, since my approach is not universal, but I think Metacritic is a fairer gauge than Rotten Tomatoes in permitting a middle ground of neither loving it or hating it. Lastly, CinemaScore does not belong in the "Critical response" section; it should be woven into the box office content because audiences are not critics. It's important for editors to engage in discussions and to explain their thought process behind edits. I ask you to be willing and able to talk with other editors as part of writing the encyclopedia. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 03:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * To add a final note for tonight, it is an exaggeration to state that the film received "mainly positive critical reviews". As we can see from Metacritic and even Rotten Tomatoes itself with its rating average, that is not true. Looking for other sources, it looks like Los Angeles Times says it best here, "Reviews so far have been generally favorable, though not effusive." I think that is a good summary of the collective critical response. I suggest using wording similar to that. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 03:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your "03:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)" post, Erik -- addressing the problems with Lkaliba's editing and the version that Lkaliba has very recently restored the article to. However, I think that Lkaliba needs to be reverted again, per what we've stated above, and reported to the WP:Edit warring noticeboard if he or she reverts on this matter again. Either that, or reported to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (WP:ANI). I don't see Lkaliba's editing approach improving, and, until I see it improving, I will want Lkaliba indefinitely blocked. As for CinemaScore, as noted here, I happen to prefer CinemaScore material being in the Critical response section, as a contrast to what the critics' stated. WP:MOSFILM currently allows it in that section, and putting it there has become routine for Wikipedia film articles...more so than including it in the Box office section, especially since it's more about what the audience thought than box office numbers and the like. Also, to me, it's better to include it in the Critical response section than creating an unnecessary Audience response heading. Per MOS:PARAGRAPHS, "Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading." It irks me when people create a subheading for a sentence or for a very short paragraph. As for "mainly positive" vs. "generally positive" or "generally favorable," they are usually treated as synonyms, including on Wikipedia, but I understand what you mean in this case ("though not effusive"). Flyer22 (talk) 03:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I have to say that I disagree with putting CinemaScore in the critical reception section, even though I apparently added that in 2008, haha. I wasn't looking for an "Audience response" section at all. I tend to think of the box office content as reflective of audiences' reception of the film, and CinemaScore's polling is based on the opening-weekend audience, so I have generally put CinemaScore right next to that information. Do you think that would work? I don't think CinemaScore's placement in MOS:FILM meant it had to be in the critical reception section, just that it was a general reception guideline. We can discuss that with the community if you want. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 11:46, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Regarding WP:MOSFILM, I'm the one who re-made the Audience response section a subsection of the Critical response section in January of this year (because, as noted at the guideline talk page, I didn't want editors to be tempted to create Audience response sections just for the sake of creating them; having that section formatted as part of the Critical response section at WP:MOSFILM makes that less likely to happen, in my opinion). I know that "CinemaScore's placement in MOS:FILM [does not mean it has] to be in the critical reception section." After all, the lead of WP:MOSFILM states, "There is no defined order of the sections; please see WikiProject Film's Good Articles and Featured Articles for examples of appropriate layouts. Since the page is a set of guidelines, it is subject to change depending on Wikipedia policies or participant consensus. For other guidelines, see Manual of Style." I cited WP:MOSFILM allowing CinemaScore in the Critical response section to show that it's not wrong to place it there. It's my and others' personal preference that it goes there. Its your and others' personal preference that it does not go there. I don't think that we should change WP:MOSFILM to state that CinemaScore should not go in the Critical response section. In some cases, such as when a Box office section is all about numbers and has no commercial analysis detail, it might fit best in the Critical response section. In other cases, such as when the Box office section does have commercial analysis detail, it might fit best there. Right now, however, we need to get the reception material back to a more accurate reflection. I see that Lkaliba has made somewhat of an attempt to do that. Flyer22 (talk) 12:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Plot Error, Other Possible Error
The plot summary has the order of events wrong.

Currently it states that Thomas, Minho, and volunteers go into the maze and retrieve a device from the deceased Griever, then going on to state that the girl arrives in the elevator the next morning. This is incorrect. Thomas and Minho spend the night in the maze. When they return the next morning, Gally is holding a meeting/council discussing Thomas. During this meeting, they hear the elevator where they find the girl with the note. Presumably later that day is when Thomas, Minho, et. al re-enter the maze and discover the mechanical device from the dead Griever.

Also, there are NUMEROUS references to "the Gladers" both in the plot summary and in the cast listing. I'm assuming this came from the book, but NOWHERE in the film is the term "Gladers" used; as such, I think using the term in an article about the film is inappropriate.

Patrick of J (talk) 10:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The term "Gladers" is used in the film. When Alby explains the rules to Thomas, he says, "Second, never harm another Glader." Kumagoro-42 16:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism?
I think the description of the characters contains either vandalism or book-only elements. It's stated that Minho "is in love with Newt and Thomas" (there's no romance in the movie, let alone gay romance); also "salamander boy" and "Keeper of the Cooks" might be monikers from the books, but the movie doesn't mention them. Kumagoro-42 16:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumagoro-42 (talk • contribs)

Changes to article
As I stated in my edit summary, I will be parceling out my edits to the article so it is easier to know which ones are disputed and which ones are not. I've started with a couple of changes. First, I've rounded up the million-dollar figures per MOS:LARGENUM, which the community has supported doing this year. Secondly, per WP:FILMLEAD, we need to simplify the genres in the lead section. It is a mouthful to say "science fiction action thriller film". Looking at reliable sources about the film, it has both dystopian and young-adult elements, so I've changed it to be "young-adult dystopian film" which correctly frames the story. If we want to capture to the action and thrilling element, I suggest that we move up the premise to the first paragraph. This is done at Edge of Tomorrow (film), so we can simply define it as a science fiction film and indicate the kind of elements that it has (military, action, time travel). So I am starting with these changes, and I ask, , , , (all of you recently editing this article) to weigh in with your thoughts and your own proposed changes. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 12:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't agree that "young adult" is an appropriate label for this film, or any film that is an adaptation of a YA novel. The target audience expands beyond that, and it seems to be kind of like including "independent" in the lead. It's not really a genre as much as a category. I agree that the current three genres was too much, but I don't see why science fiction film can't do the job. At it's core, that's what it is. It's kind of like how superhero movies are just "superhero film", rather than action-comedy-thriller-suspense-whatever. The premise being in the first paragraph would be good. Sock   ( tock talk)  13:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Maybe we could say that it is a dystopian film based on the young adult novel? I suggest "dystopian" because it is the appropriate sub-genre here. I think a good practice is to put the most identifiable element(s) upfront in the opening sentence. For example, I don't think it is necessary to mention director Wes Ball in the sentence. We can state that it is a film based on the novel, and then in the next sentence, mention Ball. And honestly, I would not mention the producers in the first paragraph, as their names are going to be pretty indiscriminate to readers. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the film is more of a "science fiction" "action film" because the film is science fiction material with action sequences added into the story, and those two are identifiable elements. Also, I think we should mention director Wes Ball in the opening sentence because even though the film is based on a novel it still a movie and we should let the reader know who directed it before let them know it was based on a book. Lkaliba 21:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Genre debates are things I try to stay out of, so I'll let this be worked out without me. However, Lkaliba, the article should lead with the most relevant information. In this case, the thing most readers will identify with right off the bat is that it's based on a novel. Then Ball can be mentioned, similarly to how it is at Edge of Tomorrow (film). It leads with the two stars, the most identifiable elements, then mentions the director and source material in the second sentence. Sock   ( tock talk)  21:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Well with other films based on young-adult novels and even films that are not even based on novels, their articles differ from that. Examples like Divergent (film), The Hunger Games (film), Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief; they always stat their genre first, then the director, and then the novel is was based on. lkaliba 21:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * , these changes you made, which I reverted, changes that go against guidelines (MOS:LARGENUM, WP:FILMLEAD and WP:CONTRACTION) and undo the work of others without explanations in an edit summary, is exactly what I mean by your WP:Disruptive editing and is why I pinged Black Kite in the section above. We can't get anything done at this article with you blindly reverting. Your blind revert even restored a typo -- adaptations is the correct spelling. Simply reverting and coming to the talk page to state that you disagree with us does not defend your reverting. Did you even read the WP:Edit warring policy? Do you think that I am kidding, bluffing, about reporting your WP:Disruptive behavior? You do not WP:Own the The Maze Runner (film) article or any Wikipedia article. Do read and comprehend the WP:Own policy, and the other Wikipedia policies and guidelines we have linked you to. You show barely any cooperative personality on Wikipedia, which is why you are not a good fit for Wikipedia; Wikipedia is all about collaboration. I'm going to alert WP:Film to your problematic editing. And if that problematic editing continues, the next stop is taking you to the WP:Edit warring noticeboard or to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (WP:ANI). Flyer22 (talk) 03:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * , please stop undoing changes that have consensus behind them, especially without any edit summaries and reverting typo corrections in the process. You have not said anything here about rounding million-dollar figures, yet you reverted these changes. In response to mentioning the director upfront or not, it can be common for film articles to mention the director upfront even if the person was not one that attracts audiences, but that does not make it a good practice. People go to see a Christopher Nolan film, which is why he is mentioned upfront in Interstellar (film). Here, people are going to see this movie about of the fame of the young-adult novel. Like Sock said, the most relevant information should be upfront, so it will depend on the film. That's why for Edge of Tomorrow (film), we state the starring actors in the opening sentence and the director in the next. Doug Liman is not a household name. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 04:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, Lkaliba, stop incorrectly signing your username. I told you in the overly positive review summary section above, "All you have to do to sign your username is simply type four tildes (~), like this: ." This and this timestamp are incorrect, at least going by Wikipedia time. I fixed your timestamps above in this section. Flyer22 (talk) 04:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I totally agree on pushing the director's name to the foreground background, but if there's consensus for it, I guess it's alright. The other changes are a definite improvement, however, and I think reversions require some kind of discussion or rationale.  Otherwise it's just disruptive to revert changes that push the article toward compliance with our guidelines.  Speaking of which, there are some semicolons used improperly... NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Do you mean pushing it to the background/pushing it from the foreground? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Damn it. You caught me just before I could edit it.  Nonetheless, I have stealthily struck through the offending mistake. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, my thinking on this practice comes from MOS:INTRO, "The reason for a topic's noteworthiness should be established, or at least introduced, in the lead," and "...emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources." So basically, people did not go to see the movie because of director Wes Ball. If anything, they went to see it because of the source material. It's not necessarily a practice to standardize (I would probably need to review some of my own work to apply this thinking), but I think it should be more encouraged. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I was operating under the same thinking as, as I also supported that argument for Edge of Tomorrow (which we've both mentioned, and worked on). There is no way, in my eyes, that Wes Ball's directing was a bigger draw for this film than the fact that it was based on a novel. This formatting is similarly used at Fight Club, a featured article. Also, , I understand that you're getting frustrated, but you're also getting a little personal, and that isn't gonna help anyone. Sock   ( tock talk)  15:25, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Lol, I was actually thinking that Fight Club needed to be updated. :) I think in the retrospective sense, Fincher is the more relevant connection than the book itself. That's a discussion we can have there too. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:29, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * NinjaRobotPirate, thanks for weighing in after I posted to WP:Film about this article. Regarding this, I've never used semicolons in that way. But it's the lesser evil to me when it comes to choosing subheadings for a little bit of material. Like I recently stated at the Gone Girl (film) article: Per MOS:PARAGRAPHS, "Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading."


 * Sock, I disagree that I'm "getting a little personal" when it comes to Lkaliba. And I certainly don't agree that I've violated WP:No personal attacks in this regard, which I made perfectly clear in the #overly positive review summary section above. When an editor continually acts disruptively, that is when it is perfectly fine to comment on that editor -- that editor's behavior and editing style -- and that is what I've done regarding Lkaliba. Others might want to take a soft approach with Lkaliba, but Lkaliba has had enough soft approaches on these matters. It's time to take a hard stance against Lkaliba's disruptive editing and that's what I've done; I won't be going back on any of what I've stated regarding that editor.


 * Also, guys, like I've stated in the #overly positive review summary section above, there is no need to ping me to this talk page; it's on my WP:Watchlist. Flyer22 (talk) 15:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Regardless of any other concerns, WP:RFC/U or WP:ANI would probably be a better venue to discuss user behavior. With regard to the lead, I guess I favor standardized openings for leads, but this style does make sense.  The problem is that I often see these sorts of constructions in articles written by an editor with a conflict-of-interest.  In those cases, you can usually tell rather easily who wrote the article ("a 2014 film produced by Joe Producer and released through his distribution company, XYZ Films.")  Maybe I'm too used to fixing obscure films with a COI to have a relevant opinion on a mainstream Hollywood hit.  I'll admit that I'm out of my element here and probably also out of touch with current consensus on "real" films, as I spend most of my time creating/editing articles on direct-to-video zombie films and cult art-house films.  In that world, we don't got no "featured" articles, and the only rule is "two men enter, one man leaves". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Lkaliba's WP:Disruptive editing at the The Maze Runner (film) article is why I and others have mentioned it at this talk page and have tried to get Lkaliba to act appropriately while editing the The Maze Runner (film) article. Of course it's common that an editor's disruptive editing at a Wikipedia article is mentioned at the talk page of that Wikipedia article. I already stated above that if Lkaliba continues editing disruptively -- the usual blind reverts or other disruptive reverts, etc. -- that I will take the matter to the WP:Edit warring noticeboard or to WP:ANI. WP:RFC/U, which is a longer process, a waste of more resources, and is better suited for more established editors who might have some flaws in their editing, is not the right venue in this case (not unless I go looking deep into Lkaliba's editing at other Wikipedia articles and pull together evidence of a long pattern of WP:Disruptive editing). Flyer22 (talk) 16:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: I agree with the wording proposed by of "young-adult dystopian film", this seems to be a good compromise as it's obviously based on a young adult book and dystopia within film is commonly a sub-genre of science fiction. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 03:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: (I hope this syntax is appropriate for the "talk" page of this article) While I see why this page was changed to refer to the movie genre as dystopian, which it is technically, that is not revealed in the movie until the last 10 mins. Usually major plot giveaways are put into "Plot" section of articles. While technically accurate, most of the movie has little indication about its overall setting. It is more like a Science Fiction Action Movie that in the end turns out to have been in a dystopian future, as apposed to an alien abduction or other ending. Most of the movie is an Action Film in a Science Fiction setting (with some science fiction themes similar to the Predators 2010 movie & other survivalist scifi thrillers).  It would be unlikely if someone stopping the movie before the 100min mark would consider the movie to be in the dystopian genre at all. Also, I would categorize the movie as young adult, but that is my bias to its quality, not to anything in the dialog or the way it was directed. It does not lack anything a non-young adult action movie would have other then the age of the characters (is Logans Run young adult?). It is based on a young adult book, but that is mentioned later in the opening paragraph with the link to the book and its description as such. SciFi action film may seem generic, but details are listed in the summery, and the ending is in the plot section and does not need to be in the opening sentence. &mdash;   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.222.40.44 (talk) 05:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: has blindly reverted again, including restoring the aforementioned adaptations typo. I'll take care of Lkaliba's WP:Disruptive editing at a later date (and I mean reporting the matter at an appropriate noticeboard), if no one else does so before then. I don't have time for this mess right now, especially since some others seem to keep tolerating Lkaliba's WP:Disruptive behavior or don't care about the matter. And, Lkaliba, do know that going away for a few days and returning to the same WP:Disruptive editing behavior will not save you from getting WP:Blocked for WP:Edit warring in the least. Flyer22 (talk) 23:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)