Talk:Aftershock: Earthquake in New York

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Film Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the priority scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.
Additional Information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

	Television Portal This article is part of WikiProject Television, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to television programs and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-Importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

A character or cast section needs to be added to this article, or the current one needs expansion or clean up. Ideally, this section will be written in prose following the Television Manual of Style and remembering to adhere to the fiction notability guidelines. For more advice or clarification, visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Television.

A response section needs to be added to this article. This section should be well cited using neutral and reliable sources that discuss the reaction of both critics and the viewing audience to the show. Additionally, document any impact the show has had on society, and merchandise that may have resulted from the show, such as toys, games, etc. For more advice or clarification, visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Television.

[edit] Infobox Tag

Infobox tag has been removed as article already has one. If you have any problems with this please post a message on my talk page. RWardy 22:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfC: Plot needs radical trimming

I'd like to suggest that a blow-by-blow description of the story is really not appropriate for a movie of this type (i.e. a made-for-TV movie without much of an afterlife). I don't know the film, so I can't do the editing myself (and I despise tagging, so I'm not going to slap a "Plot too long" tag on it), but someone who knows the film might want to take a wack at cutting the plot section down by half, at least. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 09:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed and tagged as such. Collectonian (talk) 09:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it. 3,000 words to describe the plot of a TV movie is obscene. A brief summary of the plot, perhaps 500 words, would be welcome. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 19:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Removing the plot is not an appropriate fix and your removal has been reverted. The need is to edit the plot down, not ax it all together. The guideline is 400-900 words for a 2 hour movie with a relatively simple plot. As Aftershock is a little over three hours long, and has a complex plot following multiple groups of people, 800-1800 words would be within the guidelines, and 2000 would not be unreasonable. Collectonian (talk) 19:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Your statement that removal is inappropriate is incorrect; See Wikipedia:Be bold. It is certainly arguable that doing so is more likely to encourage editors to produce an appropriate plot summary than exhorting them to try to produce something useful out of the current monstrously large slab of text. In my opinion 800 words would be acceptable, 2,000 words would be utterly ridiculous. I'm starting a RfC. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 19:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

An RfC seems rather extreme this early, but your choice. There is no disagreement over the plot needing to be cut down, only your method of removing it all together instead of doing the actual work to edit it. As for the word count, it comes from the Film MOS and project consensus. If you wish to argue that, please do so in the film project. Collectonian (talk) 19:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

An RfC is just another way of getting more views--it's a good way of avoiding a stalement. I've looked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines and I agree with it, but I think it's very much in line with what I'm suggesting. In fact it says: "Plot summaries should be between 400 and 700 words and should not exceed 900 words unless there is a specific reason such as a very complicated plot." I have said that 2,000 words would be obscenely long. If we can trim the current 3,000 words down to something like 800, preferably less, I'll be very happy, but I suggest that a rethink about the structure of the summary would work better than simply trying to hack out words. In short, it should be rewritten. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

400-700 words, and 900 words max is for a standard length movie. This movie is extra long. 800 would not be sufficient for a movie that spans over 3 hours and follows multiple story lines at once. I've asked the film project to participate in this RfC. Until, please stop changing the plot section and making it worthless. Collectonian (talk) 22:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

As a bold experiment, which should be reverted if desired, I've trimmed the plot summary to a bare summary [1]. This lists the main characters and incorporates the schedule of structural damage caused to the city. I suggest that it might be a lot easier to expand on that summary than to trim bits out of the 3,000-word original. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 21:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I've undone it. That was a purely useless plot summary that wouldn't tell anyone anything about the movie at all. Have you ever seen it? The focus is not on the "schedule of structural damage" but on the relationships of the main characters and how they are affected by the disaster. Collectonian (talk) 22:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Well we're getting somewhere. I've made an attempt to produce a minimal summary the plot and you've opined that it's "purely useless". Obviously you think we need to put in more about the characters. Here's a proposed addition:

Through the failing relationship of Dori and Sam, parental concerns about the vulnerability of children are explored. Danny has been injured in an accident two years previously, and at first Sam writes off Dori's concerns about earthquakes as imaginary, since they had moved from the quake-prone Los Angeles area to New York.

Diane loses her father in the quake, and is comforted and helped by Nikolai, and they become close. In the epilog, they are still together and Diane is a star ballerina.

Evie and Joshua are among people trapped in the Subway when the quake hits. Joshua takes charge, and in a subplot it is revealed that Joshua committed the murder of his wife, a crime of which Evie had had him cleared. He tries to kill Evie and the others, but dies in a fortuitous accident as he tries to escape.

Ahearn, at first seen on the point of resignation because of his differences with the mayor, takes charge of the emergency, and in the epilog he is shown still in his post one year later.

We can add more, and the above does need polishng. My point is that there are ways of writing about this film than a huge blow-by-blow account, and such an innovative telescoping structure is unlikely to result by chipping away at the current version. And please stop telling me to stop being bold. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 23:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The first paragraph seems to cross the the OR line, and is not accurate. The third paragraph is also inaccurate, as is the last. I agree a huge blow-by-blow is not good, however just ripping out the entire thing is not the right answer either. It needs compacting, not massacre. I didn't tell, I asked because I get tired of having to revert. Collectonian (talk) 23:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to differ on the question of compacting it--the huge slab of text we have now was added here in two edits by User:4.235.36.194 eighteen months ago, and was little touched for months until in September you rewrote half the plot section while retaining the long format. There has been little change since then. Now I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that an article that has suffered from a grossly inappropriate edit for eighteen months without anything being done to remove the most obvious problem is likely to remain so as long as the inappropriate content remains on the article and we try to chip away at it.

On reverting, you should always feel free to revert a bold edit, but I promise I won't try your patience. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 00:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Back on the subject of the rewrite, would you like to have a go at correcting the inaccuracies in my proposed draft? --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 00:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I still do not like the proposed draft. It is too short. We are supposed to cover all of the major plot points, not just quick bullet points.

I think we can both agree that we both feel the plot is to long, right? (I think I'm the one who tagged it for plot in the first place?). I did do the rewrite, because of inaccuracies. When I did it, I wrote as I watched, which always results in excessive length, but, to me, it ensures an accurate starting place for then cutting things down and compacting. Several places something is said in three sentences that probably only needs one. Our difference of opinion seems to be on how to cut it down and to what extent. You seem to favor just scrapping and redoing, while I would prefer to first copyedit the existing to cut out the excess words/phrases and see what's left. I think with good copyediting, the plot could be brought down to an acceptable length, without just getting rid of all of it. Collectonian (talk) 00:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I've put a copy of the plot rewrite at:

Talk:Aftershock: Earthquake in New York/Plot rewrite

We'll make much quicker progress if you will simply Be bold and edit it instead of discussing. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 00:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, you asked for an RfC...wouldn't it be good to actually get some other comments? I will work on a shorter version, starting with the current one which is accurate, in my sandbox while waiting for the actual other comments asked for. Collectonian (talk) 00:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It would be a bad idea to stop editing simply because we want opinions. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 00:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Is Collectonian attempting to do a rewrite, or is it just Anticipation? I could give it a go, if that would help. I am fuzzy about some details, since it has been a while since SciFi hasn't aired it recently. I will put notes on Anticipation's rewrite now, however. - LA @ 07:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I am also attempting a rewrite, in my userspace. Collectonian (talk) 07:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I was going to give notes, but I have another idea. - LA @ 07:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend that the parties continue to work this out (as it seems to be fairly unacrimonious). You're both right - the plot section should not be a blow-by-blow, but "killing the patient to stop the disease" is not an acceptable solution either. The plot section should include a summary of the complete film, and in the absence of a sufficient trimming, it is better to err on the side of too much information rather than too little. I wish you both luck and look forward to your collaboration. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alternatives

What the plot needs is sections. I suggest the following...

Dori Thorell section

Diane Agostini section

Evie Lincoln section/The Lincoln section

Thomas Ahearn section

The last two sections overlap a lot, but the first two nearly stand alone.

In looking at Anticipation's draft, the last paragraph could also be in its own section called Landmarks of New York.

What do you think about that idea? I don't know if there are references, other than the film itself, to these divisions, however they would break up the plot section a bit and make it more readable. - LA @ 07:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

That is similar to the idea I had as well, see User:Collectonian/WIP5, using the rough group breaks RHI notes in their description. I went with five, though, as that's how they originally marketed it, though Emily and Clayton possible could go in the preceding section as their appearances were mostly small. Collectonian (talk) 07:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, I wish that there were a way to mention the fact that four of the actors in this miniseries were also in Stargate SG-1; JR Bourne, Garwin Sanford, Tom McBeath, and Roger Cross. - LA @ 08:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I dislike the idea of dividing the plot summary into sections, and don't think it would be necessary. This plot is not so tortuous that it needs immense amounts of exposition: as some people are going about their everyday lives in NYC, an earthquake shakes things up, and this brings both cataclysmic death and destruction and abrupt change, but also unexpected epiphanies and transformations. We don't need to write about every detail, such as Nikolai's ignorance of where or what Gracie Mansion is--a scene which is only in the film to establish that he's a recent immigrant and doesn't know the city.

My draft is about 500 words, which leaves plenty of room for expansion if there are major elements missing (and I'm sure there are). I recommend its structure as a better start to a reasonable plot summary than the existing 3,000 word tome, if only because it's easier to identify problems and hack them out of a shorter piece! --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 09:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

As discussion seems to have stalled and no significant efforts have been made to resolve the problem of the huge plot summary, I've boldly replaced it with my much briefer effort. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 07:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to Collectonian for an excellent job of correction and polishing. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 08:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)