Talk:Randall Boggs: Difference between revisions

 
(4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 45: Line 45:
:::"when some users try to expand the pages that have been stubs for months just have them pushed aside all just because "it's regurgitated" or the scene "is not needed" regardless if that scene happened in the game."
:::"when some users try to expand the pages that have been stubs for months just have them pushed aside all just because "it's regurgitated" or the scene "is not needed" regardless if that scene happened in the game."
::::"script regurgitation" means that someone is just describing the stage movements, and quoting exact lines, from the characters, instead of writing in an encyclopedic style that summarizes the ''purpose'' of the scenes and actually informs the reader. It's bad writing and it makes the wiki look bad. There's also nothing "hypocritical" about pointing that out. It's better for an article to be marked as incomplete, than to have a section that reads like a child wrote it.
::::"script regurgitation" means that someone is just describing the stage movements, and quoting exact lines, from the characters, instead of writing in an encyclopedic style that summarizes the ''purpose'' of the scenes and actually informs the reader. It's bad writing and it makes the wiki look bad. There's also nothing "hypocritical" about pointing that out. It's better for an article to be marked as incomplete, than to have a section that reads like a child wrote it.
::::" so I don't see why to omit it completely and throw this under the bus"
:::" so I don't see why to omit it completely and throw this under the bus"
:::It's not being ommitted. It's part of the "force him to go back through his repaired door". The passage is describing the ''meaning'' of what's going on, rather than exact stage movements.
::::It's not being ommitted. It's part of the "force him to go back through his repaired door". The passage is describing the ''meaning'' of what's going on, rather than exact stage movements. If you describe the scene to your friend as "Sulley roared at Randall", they're going to think "So?" If you describe it as "Sulley forced Randall to go back through his door", they will actually understand the point of the scene. The point of the scene wasn't that Sulley just wanted to roar, it was that Sulley was subduing Randall so they could send him back through his door. "As he angrily kicks the destroyed machine, Sulley roars at him." is script regurgitation that is redundant to the following sentence.
:::If you describe the scene to your friend as "Sulley roared at Randall", they're going to think "So?" If you describe it as "Sulley forced Randall to go back through his door", they will actually understand the point of the scene. The point of the scene wasn't that Sulley just wanted to roar, it was that Sulley was subduing Randall so they could send him back through his door. "As he angrily kicks the destroyed machine, Sulley roars at him." is script regurgitation that is redundant to the following sentence.
:::"preventing Randall from returning."
:::"preventing Randall from returning." -- this clause is aggressively redundant to the previous sentence. It's already implicit that this is the purpose of Sora locking the door.
::::this clause is aggressively redundant to the previous sentence. It's already implicit that this is the purpose of Sora locking the door.
:::"Before Sulley can destroy the door" -- phrasing it this way implies that Sora is trying to compete with Sulley. "This time" instead implies that Sora is suggesting an alternative solution.
:::"Before Sulley can destroy the door"
:::Including the comma between "film" and the movie title is not grammatically correct as far as I can find.
::::phrasing it this way implies that Sora is trying to compete with Sulley. "This time" instead implies that Sora is suggesting an alternative solution.
:::What other Disney character articles do should ''not'' be the metric for what is proper to do -- especially since none of the articles you gave as examples are rated as "good articles" (two of them are even articles for KH3 characters, and still under construction!). What the MoS says to do, should be the metric. I disagree with going into to much non-KH detail, as "Mr. Waternoose" isn't going to mean much to a reader unless they already know what the Origin section is trying to inform them. However, I would support it if we used the main template to link to the movie's wikipedia article ''within'' the origin section, in addition to the lede -- that way, we're providing the reader a clear way to inform themselves on the jargon we're using.{{User:KrytenKoro/Sig}} 15:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
::::Including the comma between "film" and the movie title is not grammatically correct as far as I can find.
::::What other Disney character articles do should ''not'' be the metric for what is proper to do -- especially since none of the articles you gave as examples are rated as "good articles" (two of them are even articles for KH3 characters, and still under construction!). What the MoS says to do, should be the metric. I disagree with going into to much non-KH detail, as "Mr. Waternoose" isn't going to mean much to a reader unless they already know what the Origin section is trying to inform them. However, I would support it if we used the main template to link to the movie's wikipedia article ''within'' the origin section, in addition to the lede -- that way, we're providing the reader a clear way to inform themselves on the jargon we're using.{{User:KrytenKoro/Sig}} 15:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 
== ENX edits ==
 
As a general overview, we are supposed to cover each scene a character appears in.
 
*Giving a brief archetype and stating the origin of the character is the preferred format (ex. [[Aladdin]]). Also, the "introduced" and "originally taken" language is preferred.
*"and he returns after the events of the film with help from [[Vanitas]]." -- the events of the film are not KH canon, and we shouldn't reference them in the lede as if they are. The previous version gives a brief summary of his events in the games, as backed up by the characters. Who is Randall? a former scarer. Why is he here? He was exiled for taking screams by force, and is back for revenge alongside Vanitas.
*Era-headers are ''required'' for plot sections, even if the character only appears in one game. That being said, the first paragraph should probably be "before KH3".
*"Randall is an employee at Monsters, Inc." - He's not.
*"He targets a little human girl, [[Boo]], but is defeated by his rival, [[James P. Sullivan]], and banished." - he's banished for specific reasons that are critical to why Vanitas allies with him.
*"a door to a human trailer home that was immediately destroyed, and barely escaped being killed by its inhabitants, who mistake him for an alligator." -- where he was sent is referenced both when he returns, and when he is sent back.
*"Randall's door is repaired" -- by Vanitas.
*"and attempt to reclaim his prior prestige" -- this is an explicit character goal for Randall - to be #1.
*"Randall learns the city has come to rely on the power of laughter" -- we don't have an indication that he learned this when he came back, instead of before he was banished.
*"With their help, he infiltrated the factory and weaponized its machinery." -- this is the main way he comes into conflict with the heroes in the story.
*"Randall's mission puts him in conflict once again with Sulley and [[Mike Wazowski]]. Randall and the Unversed infiltrate Monsters, Inc., but they are ultimately stopped by [[Sora]], [[Donald Duck]], and [[Goofy]]." -- this is far too vague.
*Randall is not "solely" driven by revenge.
*His opposition to the power of positive emotions is also implied to not be because of any principled objection, but simply due to narcissism.
*"Voiced by {{w|Steve Buscemi}}," -- it's a bit unwieldy to combine in-universe and out-universe info in the same sentence. It flows better with the out-universe info in one sentence, and the in-universe separated.
*"seeks to break the all-time scare record before his rival," -- the Scream Extractor plot specifically includes Randall saying that the scare record is farce. His main goal is to be better than Sulley, not through the scare record, but through solving the energy crisis.
{{User:KrytenKoro/Sig}} 19:13, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
::I was trying to solve problems, not create more. The edits have been reverted. - {{User:EternalNothingnessXIII/Sig}} 19:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
:::I tried to add back all the contributions I didn't disagree with. Does this look good?{{User:KrytenKoro/Sig}} 20:08, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
53,710

edits