Talk:Andrea Somers

Overlong plot summary

Hi Therealscorp1an, I've put the long plot tag back onto the article. The fact that the article didn't have this tag back in 2017 just means that nobody noticed it and tagged it. Take a look at Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary - this article badly needs its plot trimmed. --Slashme (talk) 06:24, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I think it should be removed for now and we wait for consensus. I will ping other soap opera editors for now. @Raintheone, DaniloDaysOfOurLives, U-Mos, Soaper1234, and JuneGloom07:. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 06:32, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the "storylines" section and the plot tag. We can discuss whether any of that material needs to go back. --Slashme (talk) 07:06, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Maybe a good idea to get another independent eye on this article: Rosguill, do you think it was reasonable to cut this section? --Slashme (talk) 07:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@Slashme: Please stop disruptively editing. You removed the entire storylines section, which is not how soap opera articles are formatted. I don't think you or Rosguill are soap opera editors (this is not me saying you can't edit, of course anyone can edit), so these edits honestly look like "drive-by" edits to me. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 08:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Therealscorp1an, consider the guidance on plot summaries: "Wikipedia treats creative works (including, for example, works of art or fiction, video games, documentaries, research books or papers, and religious texts) in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works." - that was in no sense a concise summary. --Slashme (talk) 08:38, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

The plot section is overly detailed. You have to remember that large plot sections are not encouraged on Wikipedia and their inclusion will only attract scrutiny. I have not included plot sections in articles I have created for some years now. I find them a problem. If a subject can gain enough notability and coverage for an article, everything that should be covered is. It is usually written about from the real world perspective in the development section. I am not against this article having a plot section - it can easily be condensed down.Rain the 1 09:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I just wrote out my entire point of view and it got deleted, whoops. Andrea Somers has had over 12.5 hours of screentime over the 100-or-so episodes she has appeared in and her initial storyline was extremely complex, so this is pretty condensed considering that. Many other soap opera articles have storyline sections much bigger than this one as well. Next, the 2017 article had the exact same content in it and dozens of editors have passed through that article over the four years it has consisted, yet not one of them have placed that tag, meaning that this edit was most likely a "drive-by edit". Your other edits here are also questionable. For example, deleting the entire storylines section (without consensus may I add), deleting necessary material in other sections, inviting someone to the conversation who I haven't seen contribute to any soap opera articles after a pinged many others who have, and more. Note that this is not me in any way saying that non-participants can't edit (of course they can), but they should know the guidelines first. However, I can see how it may be too detailed and I'll work on trimming unnecessary detail. Let's see what others say. Thanks - Therealscorp1an (talk) 10:17, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

How's it looking now? - Therealscorp1an (talk) 10:57, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Agree with User:Raintheone, also WP:OTHERSTUFF. Just remember the storyline section is the least important part of any soap article, and the majority of the details should be covered by the development section. Yes, the storylines should've been trimmed when the character was in the list, but it's very easy to overlook the lists (especially by those who don't edit television/fictional character articles) and was probably not as noticeable. User:Slashme has not done a drive-by tag and has not acted in a disruptive manner. I find it kinda rude that you went through and questioned their edits, as well as their invitation to another editor (who likely has more experience than all of us put together) to have a look. You mentioning guidelines and being a soaps editors is slightly hypocritical, since you've been here all of five minutes and don't seem to have read through the 'guidelines' and MOS yourself. I notice you don't seem to have provide any attribution for the content you used/moved from the list to create this article. - JuneGloom07 Talk 15:46, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

The Copied template is here. There's an example at Talk:Georgia Brooks if you need it. - JuneGloom07 Talk 15:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

As I said, "I can see how it may be too detailed and I'll work on trimming unnecessary detail". How's it looking now? Still too lengthy? - Therealscorp1an (talk) 21:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I still think it's too much of a blow-by-blow recounting of the plot, but I've removed the tag. My opinion is that this kind of material would be suitable at a topic-specific wiki like this one, but not on Wikipedia. --Slashme (talk) 08:18, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Article revamp

I've been wanting to re-do this article for a number of months now (quite frankly, it's in a poor state and looking back, I'm not surprised, since it was my first article). So I'm putting this out there for anyone who wants to help improve it by editing it or providing sources or anything else. Thanks. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)